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The result was Withdrawn nomination as the article has been improved to the point that it is hardly recognizable from when I nominated it. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digger slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an entire list of original research, and there are no reliable sources to prove their existence. This list is impossible to verify as well. Tavix (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. True, we need some sources here, but it's not original research. In fact, this has been edited on Wiktionary (wikt:Appendix:Australian military slang) since 2006. Here's one source: Australian National Dictionary Centre FlyingToaster 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, if there are no sources, how could it not be original research? Original research is basically the absence of sources (i.e. the research didn't come from anywhere). Tavix (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure original research with no hint of notability or reliable sources for things like Bucket - an M113AS1 LRV, APC - because these vehicles are "buckets of shit" or Hammer 1) noun - male genitals 2) verb - male who is copulating with a female may be said to be hammering her. If some these slang words are in fact commonly used then such terms come under Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I note there is a similar list in WIktionary. I don't think this information is notable and I think content would be very difficult to verify. Murtoa (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, fails WP:DICDEF. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be OR but army slang, like any other jargon is certainly an valid encyclopedic topic and within the scope of Wikipedia rather than wiktionary; certainly much more than a mere dictionary definition. If the list was tidied and sourced it would be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that somewhere there has been research done on military jargon and on Australian military jargon specifically and if someone was interested to find that research and use it to improve and source this article I would have no problem with keeping it. However, at present, if the OR is removed from the article as it stands there is really nothing left to keep. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uncited, unencyclopedic and aparantly original research. An encyclopedic article discussing Australian military jargon is certainly feasible, but a list of crudities like this isn't it. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can attest from personal experience that many of these are accurate, but it's basically a big slab of OR at this point. Find some reliable sources, and then we can re-create the article based on those. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• The point here is, as Mattinbgn alludes, cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. As has already been discussed for articles such as List of Internet slang (AfD discussion), a dictionary of slang words does not equate to, and does not magically become through a process of reaching some critical mass, an encyclopaedia artice about the slang that the words belong to. Compare London slang (AfD discussion), which got transformed during the AFD discussion from the one to the other. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation of an article where the facts are supported by reliable sources.--Matilda ^talk 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a very different article now - congratulations--Matilda ^talk 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is good, honest information that many people will be able to make use of. The article needs to be sourced, but that's not a reason to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that it needs sources, but if you get rid of the unsoured information, there's nothing left! I'm not against a recreation of the article if someone can create a well-sourced article about it, but until then, nuke it. Tavix (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the dictionary already exists at Wiktionary, as (ironically) pointed out by FlyingToaster above. An encyclopaedia article about a slang is suitable for an encyclopaedia (witness London slang, already mentioned), but this isn't even the beginnings of one. Unless it is turned into one, it should be deleted, leaving a readlink until someone begins such an article properly. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing does not magically turn a dictionary of slang words into an encyclopaedia article about a slang. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What turns a dictionary of slang words into an encylopaedia article about a slang is a complete rewrite. This is now an encyclopaedia article about a slang. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep What a great article! A brilliant rewrite; it is now everything a Wikipedia article should be. -- 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Worthy of inclusion in the mainspace now. --VS ^talk 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw as this article doesn't even look remotely similar to the article I nominated. Congrats. Tavix (talk) 22:26, 4 December 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.