- 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glossary of Internet-related terms ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is, in my view, a clear violation of WP:NOTDIC and should therefore be deleted. Jinkinson talk to me 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Glossaries are valid per WP:L and the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. However, this is not merely a glossary but also a list of articles. It is related to Index of Internet-related articles and Outline of the Internet, but it doesn't appear to be redundant with any other list, so it could be allowed to remain as a list. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Lists (which is also MOS:LIST) shows that list-based articles comprising a list of related WP articles is a valid sort of article. It explicitly indicates glossaries are one allowed/encouraged type of list-based article. The entries should be encyclopedically explanatory definitions, i.e., not just dictionary definitions. Many of the definitions in this article do have encyclopedic content, as they are not just about the word, e.g., ADSL. Other entries are short and could be expanded through normal editing. A valid type of list-based article that looks well formatted and with no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete each list needs to have clear criterion as to what is on it or off of it. But this list seems quite arbitrary, with a few attempts at technical terms (somewhat dated) like ADSL , while most are jargon or slang. Perhaps a list of Internet slang terms could be justified, but this list would be woefully incomplete. A list of technical terms would never ever be complete or up to date; there is just not the editor-hours to be practical. Some of the terms here do not have articles (so are uncited, and not clear they are just neologisms coined by some Wikipedia editor so hard to verify) and some seem to be jokes, like several that redirect to Epic fail. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete—I went back and forth a lot on this one... in the end it's the following guidance from the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries that swayed me:
- "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; correspondingly, explain glossary terms descriptively (just like an encyclopedia article would do it, but shorter). Only rarely and sparingly add dictionary definitions to a glossary on Wikipedia (usually solely for the sake of completeness). Lists of dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary; you can still link to them from Wikipedia articles.
- Do not add everyday words. Include only specialized terms specific to or having a special meaning within the subject of the glossary.
- All entries must be verifiable with reliable sources, just like the content of regular articles."
- So what are the chances that this glossary will ever meet these requirements? In my opinion, really, really low. Are we ever going to be able to create enough verifiable encyclopedic content to explain "tweet" descriptively? As sympathetic as I am to developing articles that could turn into something some day, this one seems like it needs a dose of WP:TNT. It simply doesn't seem to meet the (chaotic, often conflicting) criteria we have in place for lists and specifically glossaries. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly valid list article. Rename it to call it List instead of Glossary if you want. Notice how many blue links are there in it? It is useful for those wishing to learn about internet related terms, far more useful than a category because you can see a brief definition here, and then click the blue link to the main article for anything you want more information about. Dream Focus 01:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep List of notable WP articles and as such perfect navigational aid, compliant with WP:LIST. -- cyclopia speak! 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glossary of Internet-related terms ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is, in my view, a clear violation of WP:NOTDIC and should therefore be deleted. Jinkinson talk to me 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Glossaries are valid per WP:L and the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. However, this is not merely a glossary but also a list of articles. It is related to Index of Internet-related articles and Outline of the Internet, but it doesn't appear to be redundant with any other list, so it could be allowed to remain as a list. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep WP:Lists (which is also MOS:LIST) shows that list-based articles comprising a list of related WP articles is a valid sort of article. It explicitly indicates glossaries are one allowed/encouraged type of list-based article. The entries should be encyclopedically explanatory definitions, i.e., not just dictionary definitions. Many of the definitions in this article do have encyclopedic content, as they are not just about the word, e.g., ADSL. Other entries are short and could be expanded through normal editing. A valid type of list-based article that looks well formatted and with no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete each list needs to have clear criterion as to what is on it or off of it. But this list seems quite arbitrary, with a few attempts at technical terms (somewhat dated) like ADSL , while most are jargon or slang. Perhaps a list of Internet slang terms could be justified, but this list would be woefully incomplete. A list of technical terms would never ever be complete or up to date; there is just not the editor-hours to be practical. Some of the terms here do not have articles (so are uncited, and not clear they are just neologisms coined by some Wikipedia editor so hard to verify) and some seem to be jokes, like several that redirect to Epic fail. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete—I went back and forth a lot on this one... in the end it's the following guidance from the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries that swayed me:
- "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; correspondingly, explain glossary terms descriptively (just like an encyclopedia article would do it, but shorter). Only rarely and sparingly add dictionary definitions to a glossary on Wikipedia (usually solely for the sake of completeness). Lists of dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary; you can still link to them from Wikipedia articles.
- Do not add everyday words. Include only specialized terms specific to or having a special meaning within the subject of the glossary.
- All entries must be verifiable with reliable sources, just like the content of regular articles."
- So what are the chances that this glossary will ever meet these requirements? In my opinion, really, really low. Are we ever going to be able to create enough verifiable encyclopedic content to explain "tweet" descriptively? As sympathetic as I am to developing articles that could turn into something some day, this one seems like it needs a dose of WP:TNT. It simply doesn't seem to meet the (chaotic, often conflicting) criteria we have in place for lists and specifically glossaries. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly valid list article. Rename it to call it List instead of Glossary if you want. Notice how many blue links are there in it? It is useful for those wishing to learn about internet related terms, far more useful than a category because you can see a brief definition here, and then click the blue link to the main article for anything you want more information about. Dream Focus 01:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep List of notable WP articles and as such perfect navigational aid, compliant with WP:LIST. -- cyclopia speak! 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.