Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian slang

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 keep (merge tag already added). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian slang

As noted on the talk page, there has been longstanding issues with verifiability in this article. Many of the expressions are localised, and cannot be substantiated as being current anywhere and with anyone. Others are common outside Canada. The list is entertaining, but it is listcruft. And unverifiable, capricious listcruft at that Fishhead64 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of words mainly used in Canadian English Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• I protest this deletion. I find this article useful and I recommend that it be kept on the Wikipedia system. The Coldwood 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per admrboltz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 April 2006.
• I must once again protest the deletion of this page. The Coldwood 11:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• You don't need to vote twice. Fishhead64 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Admrboltz and as per User:JackLumber a month ago. SigPig 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per admrboltz Arctic Gnome 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. But while we're at it we can shuck off the unsourced nonsense and clean it up a tad (we should have a Canadian words page akin to Australian words, with possibly a different layout, as I proposed on the talk page.) As for words that are used outside of Canada: 1) Briticisms used in Canada are dealth with at Canadian English; 2) the U.S. has given many, many words to Canadian English, but many other words that have little or no currency in Britain, Australia, etc. are equally representative of both Canada and (possibly some parts of) the U.S. (e.g. sawbuck, eaves trough, and the orig. U.S. but now more Canadian-sounding washroom, to mention three words that are not even "slang"). Other words of this kind come from lumbering, farming, landscape features, etc., and many of these have other meanings also common in Britain---which is why they appear on the List of words having different meanings in British and American English. But yes, I'd try to keep all that we can; if we feel that some expressions are really, patently, unmistakably unverifiable, we can sentence them to a landfill. -- JackLumber
• Delete as per Fishead64. HistoryBA 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic, hard to verify. Stettlerj 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep separate, because the nature of the article is better presented on it's own. It's a little oddball, but quite entertaining and, I believe, educational. Enjoyed it. One can't easily verify slag terms, especially ones new on the scene. However, from my local standpoint (BC) I recognize dozens that are indeed in common usage here. I feel that active editing can keep the list correct, especially with the removal of some rare/taboo entries. Moving to a Canadian words page also acceptable per JackLumber's comment above. Triplight 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per adermboltz - pm_shef 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - just reformat and attempt to verify. If Australian words can have an article on its own (with localised sayings and things that can't be verified in there either) I don't see why Canadians can't. And for the record, I've read many of these words and noted them in unique parlance amongst many different people in the cities I've lived in (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Kenora) See the Aussie words article. If regionalisation is a problem, perhaps people should add where in Canada they are used. If words being used elsewhere is a problem, perhaps we should note that (just as the Aussie words notes common words used in both Aussie and NZ parlance.) fossilfang

• Comment The unverifiability of one article isn't really a justification for keeping another article with problems of verifiability, imo. If what you say about Australian words is true, then perhaps that article, too, can be considered for deletion or at least clean-up. It may be that a merge of Canadian slang into List of words mainly used in Canadian English will accomplish the purpose of maintaining genuine, verifiably distinct Canadian expression while removing the current free-for-all. Fishhead64 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Fair enough. Perhaps we can see what the Australian words article does differently (and also other slang articles/dictionaries) and see how we can cannabalise parts of the present list, whilst keeping the concept of having some sort of list with rules (e.g., specify which locale a slang word is used in, specify if it is shared with American slang or otherwise, delete words that are voted on as being non-representative of Canadian language)? With this in my mind my vote remains the same, with the reservation that set rules be put in place on the talk page and strictly adhered to. fossilfang 06:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep definately! Probably separate due to the concerns noted in the header. It's a resource and great fun. Verifiability and currency are irrelevant because the content is intended to be local peculiarities in local usage, possibly limited to a very small region, though no less valid if they are also used in other regions. Any definate Canadian dhould be allowed to contribute what he percieves as local colour (and yes, note the Canadian spelling of that). Scare!, May 2 2006

New member, 35 edits... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears to be largely regional slang (and by regional, I mean small regions: towns, certain groups within cities, &c.), and therefore not notable. I'm against a merge for that same reason, as I feel far too much of this is just cruft. g026r 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge BlueGoose 02:06, 3 May 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.