Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer jargon

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. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst

• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I don't know of any more useful list articles on the Wiki. This AFD nom puzzles me, sad to say. PJM 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is very useful and encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, then this has to go. Travislangley 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup This article discusses acronyms such as ENIAC, which form part of computing history alongside RTFM, which is computer slang. The article might be more useful if the two could be seperated in order to make it clear precisely what is being discussed.  (aeropagitica)  07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename as a Glossary and rewrite to match style of some existing glossaries on Wikipedia, which is clearly authorized at WP:NOT - and to Frühstücksdienst... it's more like vice-versa. I can't imagine that you are not being purposely facetious with that comment. Our goal with Wikipedia is to create something useful, not to see how closely we can follow policy. You're completely backwards. KWH 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A list of computer jargon is not a definition, nor is it slang or idiom. If there are disputes about what does, or doesn't belong in the article, they can be resolved on the discussion page. Such a list is useful and violate no wiki policy. pat8722 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft... transwiki to wikisource if anyone is interested in keeping this content and link it off the Computer article.--Isotope23 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Eskog: misinterpreting WP:NOT. — squell 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with all jargon AfD's I've seen lately. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody suggested transwikiing this to Wiktionary. I do agree with others that WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide was mis-applied in the nom's rush to make a WP:POINT by listing all of these jargon guides. It should be noted (to pat8722 and others) that WP:WINAD prohibits not only dicdefs, but lists of such defs. I think KWH's idea of cleaning this up into a gloassary is sound, but don't think a transwiki to wiktionary would hurt anything. No vote. --Karnesky 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as the subject of computer jargon is perfectly acceptable, but the current contents and scope of the article are not. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep assuming it gets a major cleanup. If it doesn't get cleaned up, I recommend a Computer Jargon category.

Stev0 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Acronyms are not really slang or idioms — Michigan user 17:38, 27 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.