Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions

0% Referenced, 100% Original Research. Wikipedia is not a collection of extraneous information. Impossible to tell what on page is legitimate content and what is purely vandalism. Page is beyond recovery and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:VAND, WP:NOT.(Version as of AfD nomination.)

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 15:29, 24 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Delete In addition to the violations above, the article is also missing in-text citations which makes it near impossible to see which external link (if any) is used for each acronyms. This would need a complete rewrite if it were to be kept so deletion seems like the best option. Tavix (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary just like Navy Slang. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a mess and never could be anything but. One of the external links is to a searchable database of military acronyms; that is where this information belongs, not Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary I like Protonk's idea. The article surly does not belong on Wikpedia. But there is quite a lot of information another wiki project could possibly use. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary Consistency is always a good thing, which in this case would be to follow Navy Slang. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what part of this article is vandalism? Protonk (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely soft redirect target found wikt:Appendix:Military slang. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Consistency? What about List_of_U.S._Marine_Corps_acronyms_and_expressions, and the other links on that page? They should be soft links too! However, the entire article is regurgitated content from the referenced sites. I say we remove it altogether and, if desired, put a link to those sites on one of the other existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonrodney (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this page was a joke at first. Impossible to fix plethora of OR. Because of the lack of sources, its liely that most of the "slang" acronyms are just random spurts of vandalism. A soft redirect to Wiktionary works, too. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, I'd guess most of these items came from veterans who heard them somewhere and added them here. Would the Army (or some veteran's group, perhaps) have a glossary of such terms, perhaps? This might be salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is not a suitable stand alone list (Wikipedia:Lists) due to lack of secondary sources supporting a lead section, and is not a navigation aid (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). Not suitable to directly transwiki to wiktionary. Wiktionary content should be created fresh from the sources, subject to wiktionary inclusion criteria. Userfy for anyone interested. Something could possibly be done with the material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.