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. The improvements made since the AfD started have vastly improved the article. — Scientizzle 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A millitairy term, it doesn't seem that it can be expanded to a encyclopedic article Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete slang prolly fits better in a dictionary. Shiva_eVolved 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of articles in Category:Military life about such fixtures of military life, and Jankers could easily be similarly expanded - as with KP duty - to explain what duties are required, and where it fits into the scheme of military punishments (it's one option in the British army equivalent of Nonjudicial punishment). The deal with jankers is that, unlike arduous but productive duties like KP, it tends to involve pointless activities - having to turn up for inspection in full kit, repeatedly; painting white posts white; and so on. The term is also used in British private schools and others that affect a military hierarchy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known and long standing term in the British "millitairy". There are plenty of references from the BBC [1] including its use in the first episode of 'It ain't half hot, mum? [2]. There are also plenty of references from memoirs covering army life and I've added some to the article. Nick mallory (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The other articles cited above show that this stub is capable of expansion. Also, the nominator is Dutch and I suspect some ulterior motive connected with that language in which the term may have other meanings. This is the English wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now. The "ulterior motive" commentary is not needed. This was a good faith nomination based on the condition of the article at present. Just because it is capable of expansion doesn't automatically mean keep. Per WP:HEY, I say expand it then. Without the promises. This AfD will be open at least a few days (and likely longer due to admin backlog). No need to attack the nominator. Keeper | 76 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to second that, I do not put up articles in english Wikipedia up for AfD because they have a different (funny?) meaning in Dutch. I might be Dutch, but I'm not stupid, a vandal, or trying to be funny. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what does it mean in Dutch? It crops up in a variety of contexts [3] that I can't make sense of. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janken means to cry or to whine. Jankers would be a construction that means 'people that whine', and could be used as a word meaning something akin to 'crybabies'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Doesn't seem like much more than a dictionary definition and is perhaps more appropriate to Wiktionary. With reliable, independent sources that tell why this is encyclopedic (beyond a definition), I'd say keep. History? Origins? Cultural relevance? Don't see it yet. Right now, it's dictionary material, and perhaps even a neologism of sorts. Jargon at best. Please don't accuse me of "ulterior motives" because I'm not British. This is a discussion about Jankers, not Martijn Hoekstra or Keeper76. Thanks in advance. Keeper | 76 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it's already more than a dictionary definition but you're saying delete the article because it's not finished yet? Better delete everything else on Wikipedia too while you're at it, just in case. Do you know what a neologism is? It means a recently coined word not in general usage. If you'd read the article you'd see plenty of sources attesting to the fact that the word has been used at least since the Second World War and is in common use now. If Jankers is a neologism then so is every word coined since 1939. If well established "Jargon", e.g. a specialised term, is not notable then presumably you're going to nominate everything on this list [4], and the list itself for deletion in a moment or two. Have you considered trying to improve the article yourself? Just a thought. Thanks in advance.Nick mallory (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, can you just relax please? Put your claws in. Why the delete everything on Wikipedia DRAMA? I said Neologism of sorts. I know the word is old. But its just a word. Jargon. Dictionary. I did not admit that it's already more than a dicdef. I actually quite clearly said it's only a dicdef. If someone can prove its not (no one has) I would change my mind. I said if sources could be brought that tell why the word has a culturally importance, or has changed something, or done anything besides being only a word used by the British military, I'd change. And the accusation of "why don't you fix it" is completely unnecessary. You assume I just throw my 2c in to get my edit count up? Seriously? Of course I searched for jankers. It's only a word though. Anybody find an article title something like How "Jankers" has changed the way things work?? And as far as bringing out the tired argument called "other stuff", yes, I would hold the opinion to also delete the list of baseball jargon, because it is only a list of words. Thanks for drawing attention to it. Notice how the only reference in that list is called Dictionary of Baseball??. What makes it encyclopedic? Please, stop attacking the nominator (Colonel Warden) and stop attacking me (Nick Mallory). It detracts from the job at hand. Keeper | 76 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How "Jankers" has changed the way things work

This seems a very restrictive criterion. Look through Category:Military life. How have KP duty, the Pace stick and epaulettes changed the way things work? It's not "just a word" - it refers to a specific body of military practice in a particular army, and as such can be expanded to describe that practice and where it fits into the punishment hierarchy (i.e. it's a form of summary discipline for offences insufficiently serious to require a court martial). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the other examples. KP duty, as an article, is right now supported by exactly one reference called Dictionary of the United States Army Terms. Probably belongs in Wiktionary. Without further sourcing, it very easily could be nominated in the future (I won't; that would be Bad faith). I would also support a merge (of jankers and KP Duty and likely others) into a parent article that describes Military punishment hierarchy (to use your words). The other examples: A pace stick is an object, as are epaulettes. Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia, which describes objects (persons, places, things). Keeper | 76 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia, which describes objects (persons, places, things)

Encyclopedias are not limited to physical objects! Procedures and customs are perfectly acceptable subjects (see Constitutional convention, Etiquette, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can ditch any claim that it's a neologism. Just checked the full OED: the earliest citation they have is 1916. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is currently a good sourced stub and the subject is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This piece has the potential to be a good article and should expand nicely using the cited material. --Stormbay (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Sharkface217 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge→??? (not sufficient for stand-alone article)—Perhaps this could become a stronger article, though I have doubts, and the result would most likely include significant original research or be of an inferential nature. All of the current online-available references in the article are incidental mentions of the term which support the meaning and context of use - which is essential for a dictionary definition; it is possible the 2006 book reference provides a different treatment. I am of the opinion that this article should be merged into an article relating methods of meting out punishment for breaches of military discipline in the British Armed Services, or more generally militaries of all kinds. It is unfortunate that Military discipline redirects to Military courtesy, because courtesy is only one aspect of discipline, and it stands to reason that the penalties for violating norms of courtesy can be quite distinct from those for violating a formal military code. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 19 December 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.