Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automotive design 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 of the debate was No consensus. This was extremely borderline, but the credo of AfD is "when in doubt, keep". Deathphoenix 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automotive design terminology

This is nothing more than a glossary. James084 23:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move to List of automotive design terms --Ruby 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Glossary. Monkeyman 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• wiki source: move is possible to wiki source. --CyclePat 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. TVXPert 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic glossary. Kappa 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; dicdifs are not encyclopedic, and a glossary is nothing but a collection of dicdifs. A glossary is therefore plainly not encyclopedic. --Aquillion 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Move per Endomion. WP contains numerous lists of jargons of long standing including: List of Computer jargon (created September 30, 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11, 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4, 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5, 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18, 2001) I copied the list from the above debate about railfan jargon. We ought to be consistent and the best is to keep all. Carlossuarez46 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Computer jargon, my bad Carlossuarez46 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that it is best to be consistent. Unfortunately, that does no seem to hold true here. I disagree that it is best to keep a bunch of glossaries in a encyclopaedia. That's what Wiktionary is for. James084 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Pretty useful glossary of terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary (which is a better match than wiki source). --Karnesky 06:17, 24 February 2006 (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.