Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sandstein (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary of Texas Aggie terms

Glossary of Texas Aggie terms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, a guidebook, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. This article falls in with all of them. Its primarily Aggie fancruft, and completely unnecessary. Those terms of note are already covered elsewhere, either with their own articles, or in the context where they are used. Collectonian (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep!!, I spent a lot of time on that page. it is well sourced, and is important for wikiproject Texas A&M. It was created to keep the Traditions of Texas A&M University page less cluttered Oldag07 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreover, there is a whole category of Glossaries[1]. I don't see this page any less relevant then most the entries in that category Oldag07 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Notifying three users about a discussion is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. — BQZip01 — talk 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Selectively notifying three users who are pro-Aggie articles is canvassing and the AfD guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Notifying three users can be a violation of WP:CANVASS, as WP:CANVASS stipulates "multiple", and last I checked, three is multiple. Notifying specific users about the issue is definitely running the risk of Votestacking and is obviously an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. Otherwise, I personally believe that the posting was limited and the message was relatively unbiased, though the transparency was questionable. —XSG 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have the page watchlisted, so I would have found this AfD anyway. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto with Karanacs. As for your comments, well, that is your opinion and others disagree. — BQZip01 — talk 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, these are some people who are actively involved in the article. Notfying them is not canvassing. If he asked some user from another discussion, then it would be accurate to call it canvassing. — BQZip01 — talk 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - violates WP:NFT. Non-notable outside the university. --Amlebede (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal You've obviously not read the sourcing or choose to ignore it. This stuff is clearly notable outside the university. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Amlebede, it doesn't matter. Notable does not necessarily mean well-known. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:12 2008 February 4 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an article on college traditions and the sourcing indicates that they are quite notable. It seems a reasonable spinoff from the main article on the university. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and also WP:NOT, including a list of information. Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal Technically everything on wikipedia is a list of random information Oldag07 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree about violating WP:NFT, clearly these terms weren't created in a day by some buddies. However, I do think that these terms are non-notable outside of the university, as all references relate directly to TA&MU and very little else. I also don't think this glossary belongs on the TA&MU page, so it oughtn't be merged back in. If anything, it belongs in a Wiki for TA&MU... —XSG 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination - there's no evidence that these terms are notable outside of the university. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The above assertion is factually incorrect - I originally started the article and I am not associated with the university. I have simply encountered several of these terms in my Wikipedia editing and decided to create a helpful tool for readers. With this article, these terms can be wikilinked as they appear in other articles.
Proof that many of these terms are known and notable outside the university can be found by checking the 44 inline sources given in the article, including:
  1. The Daily Nebraskan
  2. Playboy Magazine
  3. Houston Chronicle
  4. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  5. US News and World Report
  6. Texas Monthly
  7. Sports Illustrated
  8. ESPN
  9. Christian Science Monitor
  10. The Daily Texan
Johntex\talk 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep These terms are perfectly valid and explaining them in every instance is unnecessarily cumbersome. Terms not used in an article somewhere should not be kept.
dictionary - it is limited in scope
guidebook - where is this a guidebook in any way?
an indiscriminate collection of information - uh...you have the exact opposite here: a discriminate collection of information
directory - uh...where is this a directory?
In the interests of full disclosure, I have asked an admin from University of Texas to weigh in on the matter. — BQZip01 — talk 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I posted a notice regarding this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M/Announcements. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. People outside of the university do not care about these terms, thus it lacks notability on a world scale.Undeath (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that the sources for this article include the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Daily Nebraskan (University of Nebraska school paper), ESPN.com and Sports Illustrated, all newspapers/websites that have nothing to do with Texas A&M. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is actually a spinoff of Traditions of Texas A&M University, per WP:SUMMARY, and does establish notability by using multiple third-party reliable sources. At this time, consensus appears to be that glossaries are allowed. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. To those who say that these terms are not notable outside of the university — notice this glossary includes terms used by Aggie opponents. There are more anti-Aggie terms not on this list that can be added with proper references. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and also per WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of it can probaly go in the relevant articles on the sports, the bonfire, the Corps, etc. Probably all of it is there already.DGG (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • CommentA lot of it isn't. if this thing is deleted, would you like to help move everything?Oldag07 (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Stop trying to get a sympathy vote for this article. If it's deleted, it's because it was non notable. If you spent a lot of time on it, that is your fault. Wikipedia is not a place for this type of stuff. Plus, this argument over moving all of it is not that big either. Articles are moved all the time, it's fast and easy.Undeath (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Spending a lot of time is not something where blame should be assessed (but clearly shouldn't be a criteria for keeping either). I hardly consider it fast/easy if things have to be rephrased and inserted into ~20 articles. As for your comment about trying to get a "sympathy vote", this is a talk page where discussions happen. Convincing someone of the merits of your argument is part of the discussion. Actively discouraging someone from discussing an issue is uncivil, IMHO. He is entitled to express his opinions as are you. — BQZip01 — talk 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is a well references article that is used to help Wikipedia readers to understand terminology related to this topic. It should be viewed in the same vein as Wikipedia's baseball glossary. Just as a glossary of baseball terminology helps readers understand that topic, so too does this glossary help the reader understand topics related to Texas A&M. As for allegations of "fan-cruft", I can assure you those are baseless. I started this article and I have no connection to the university. I merely saw a need and acted on it to help Wikipedia readers. Johntex\talk 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- Notable in the amount of non university related sources. Joe I 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources seem to establish that the terminology is fairly widely known or referenced beyond the campus of A&M (or the state of Texas). This glossary does a good job of pulling all the Aggie terms together in a concise, well cited manner that the causal user would probably find useful. Jacksinterweb (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Johntex. Also, I am not associated with the university in question. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a wealth of sources. "Some phrases are also used by non-Aggies, such as persons associated with a rival school" and some will probably enter local vernaculars at some point due to their ubiquity. This seems like perfect reference material. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:10 2008 February 4 (UTC) (I, too, have no relation to Texas A&M)
  • Keep - Well cited and many sources are independant of the university itself. -Malkinann (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Highly useful for interpreting the odd colloquial references used in the various Texas A&M articles. Ameriquedialectics 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be very well sourced and other wise notable. Ursasapien (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with the nomination, the article breaks a number of rules for what Wikipedia is not. Also, even with various references, the article is still cruft. As WP:NOT states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Additionally, hardly any of the other glossaries are related to topics surrounded by a non-educational fan base. Even Star Wars and Star Trek do not have glossaries. —Noetic Sage 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarification request: Can you explain what you mean by "...are related to topics surrounded by a non-educational fan base. Even Star Wars and Star Trek do not have glossaries." Are you implying Aggies aren't educated? or that this is not any relation to an educational page (which in fact it is)? or what? Are you saying that fan bases are the basis for whether or not to have a glossary? I'm assuming plenty of good faith on this one and I think you meant well by it, but you have me really confused on this one. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, *I* was the one that said Aggies aren't educated.  :-) Seriously, I don't understand the post from Neoticsage either. Could you please leave him a talk page message and see if he can please come and clarify?
  • Clarification: I realized when I was typing that it probably didn't make sense. What I mean is that including a glossary of terms for a university is not anywhere on the level of the other glossaries (Chemistry glossary, List of established military terms, etc) because it is cruft and is not encyclopedic. It is cruft because "the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole". Hope that helps.—Noetic Sage 06:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, the list of lists that Neotisage points to is actually very instructive. It shows that we have American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, Australian English terms for food and drink, Australian English terms for people and other similar lists. Now, I'm not saying Texas A&M has their own dialect in the formal sense of the word. Nor am I comparing them to nations of people, but the idea is the same on a smaller scale. As Wikipedia grows we are inevitably covering a broader set of topics. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have no objection to renaming this as a List instead of a Glossary. Johntex\talk 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename To List of Texas Aggie terms per naming standards. Lawrence § t/e 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I could live with this compromise Oldag07 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would be OK with that also. Johntex\talk 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: If the problem is with the name of the document, please just change it and withdraw the AfD. I have no problem with either name. — BQZip01 — talk 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Changing the name of the article to a list does not in any way affect its notability. The article still does not satisfy the criteria there. The content of the dispute here is not about naming but about the article itself. Wikipedia is still not a dictionary. Specifically, this article is a slang guide, which is exactly what is not desired. —Noetic Sage 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Notability is proven by the 44 inline sources, many of which are national press. Many more reliable sources could be added if you wish. For instance, if you Google terms like "Aggie" or "teasip" or "12th man", you will get hundreds of sources for each of those terms alone. Johntex\talk 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like most of the people concerned about this page have come to an agreement. change this page to "List of Texas Aggie Terms". I don't know when this page is finally archived, and when this paged should be moved. Oldag07 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oldag07, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, it says that discussions must remain open for at least 5 days. That would make this page eligible for closure. However, there is a backlog. If you check that page you will see that some nominations from Jan-30 - Feb 2 are still open. So, please be patient for a few more days and an admin will be by to close. It looks to me like the consensus is actually to Keep at the current name. 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntex (talk • contribs)


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.