Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Internet-related terminology

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 consenus, but leaning to keep. There are some decent arguments on both sides, though there is a bit too much on whether the article is useful. I see no consensus and the weight of argument is fairly even - though The Transhumanist's argument is pretty compelling, which is why I see this as leaning to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of Internet-related terminology

Glossary of Internet-related terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Incomplete list of original research items and opinion (see PHP for example). Not factual or NPoV. https://www.detroitsci.com/ (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, putting anything useful in the Wiktionary. These terms are all OR or a condensed version of the full article. This doesn't appear useful. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdefs. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Glossaries are enhanced lists. Lists like this one, that have been enhanced with annotations to make them more useful for selecting topics to browse, are not subject to deletion as if they were dictionary definition stubs. Glossaries are an exception to the dicdef policy, and are mentioned in the usage guide section of that policy. Glossaries are a type of list, are part of Wikipedia's content system in which they serve as annotated menus or tables of contents to a subject's coverage on Wikipedia, and they are covered under the lists and stand-alone lists guidelines. Glossaries even have a Manual of Style page devoted to them. Glossaries are extremely useful for browsing. My favorite one is Glossary of philosophical isms. When you find a glossary, please rename it to "Glossary of..." and make sure it is listed at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Transhumanist. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Glossaries can be very useful. The manner in which they're organized makes them, in my opinion, sort of the bridge between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If the consensus policy was to exclude them I would personally disagree but go along with it, but as Transhumanist has pointed out, they are permitted. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted, glossaries are a type of stand-alone list. That said, the lead section should be improved, and items without sources and notability established elsewhere (I'm lookin' at you, Copypasta) may need to be removed. Cnilep (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I suppose a good encyclopedic glossary could be written. This isn't it, and there's nothing here worth keeping while we wait for someone to start it off correctly. Powers ^T 12:42, 3 June 2009 (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.