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 Keep.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-18 08:21Z
DeleteKeep, with complete rewrite. Liking the work of this so far, but every jargon word should have a reference to accompany it. Looks good guys! Kntrabssi02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete change to STRONG KEEP (for reason, see comment below Uncle G's comment below) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Noroton02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep, but rewrite There are sources, for sure, see [1] for example. I'm sure there are others. But my vote is based on the fact that WP is not a dictionary. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk14:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update upon rethinking. The phenomenon of Medical slang is real. WP having an article about it, maybe citing an example or two, but more discussing it's existence, how it is viewed by the medical profession, etc., could be notable and appropriate for WP. If the long lists were taken out, and some references added, this could be a good article. So keep, based on just removing the lists. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current version of this article is a list of swear-words. Unreferenced on top of that. The fact that professional slang per se exists should be discussed in slang. So maybe merge the descriptive part into slang. If the lists are kept, I think every single expression should be referenced and it should be indicated what country it is used in.--DorisH23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is solvable by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, and does not require an administrator to use any administrator tools. Editors should have the boldness to excise unverifiable dictionaries of slang and write proper articles themselves. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the citation for Fox et al. to this article back in September 2006. There is an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject, but the actual encyclopaedia content has been overshadowed by the collection of original research, the vast dictionary of slang, that the article itself made excuses for not complying with our Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary content policies. As demonstrated, fixing the problems with this article requires nothing more than the simple use of ordinary editing tools by ordinary editors to hold it to our content policies. Sources on the subject exist. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Uncle G, you changed my vote. This is exactly what we should be doing with articles, preferrably before they're put up for AfD nomination, but if necessary, after. Noroton00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we could have references of usage for all of these slang terms, I would uggest keeping it, but at the moment this is all original research and a list of slang, which violates What Wikipedia is Not. Kntrabssi00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. this article has the right idea. It appears to be about medical slang, not an indiscriminate list. Good job lads. requires clean up and TLC, not deletion.--ZayZayEM03:12, 16 March 2007 (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.