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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of graffiti[edit]

Glossary of graffiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#DICT Graywalls (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOT#DICT refers to single articles that are only definitions. Glossaries of different topics are an established concept on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries and Portal:Contents/Glossaries. MarkZusab (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral I may have misunderstood the meaning of WP:NOT#DICT. Nonetheless, the contents are poor and written like guidebook for taggers by taggers. Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article can be improved, adding references and rewriting the contents that need to be fixed. MarkZusab (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused about how Wikipedia defines acceptable glossary vs a miniature slang dictionary that is not allowed. I've asked the WP:NOT#DICT talk page. Graywalls (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTDICT does apply to lists of definitions such as this. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to read it again; NOTDICT even specifically addresses glossaries as permissible. It has nothing to do with "lists of definitions", but with definitional material that is dictionarian and not encyclopedic in nature. If a page like this is deleted, it inspires the creation of stand-alone articles on key terms which are not themselves actually notable (in the stand-alone article sense WP:N is about) but which are within encyclopedic relevance per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which results in a re-merge back into a list.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While this is technically a glossary, how many articles on graffiti do we have to require this much detail? There are certainly terms that probably should be defined in content of the article on Graffiti, like "tagging" but I'm not sure about the rest. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 105 articles that are categorized as "graffiti" and another 139 articles about specific American graffiti artists. As there are likely still more untagged articles, I am okay with having a glossary. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to fit the definition of Glossary perfectly. The graffiti article is already massive. To fold this glossary into it seems a poor choice. Additionally, there are are dozens of WP:WPGLOSSARIES that I personally will never need, but may be helpful to other users. Knulclunk (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While some specific entries are presently a bit WP:DICDEF, this is a surmountable problem. Various entries are already of a properly encyclopedic scope. This is a completely normal glossary-format stand-alone list article, though a bit under-developed. It's long enough already that merging it into another article as an embedded list isn't practical. Glossary articles are of great use when dealing with jargon-heavy topics (e.g. cue sports); if we lacked a glossary article (or a @#$*-load of dubious stand-alone articles), we'd have to explain in situ every single time we needed to use the field's terminology, which would be a) annoyingly brow-beating to anyone already familiar with the topic, and b) intensely frustrating for anyone reading multiple of our articles in the same topic area, seeing the same re-re-re-explanations of the same terms over and over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Glossaries of terms are well-accepted here. bd2412 T 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...". See category:Wikipedia glossaries for many other examples. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – With the Graffiti article presently at over 105kb (WP:SIZERULE), qualifies as a valid WP:SPINOUT article. Also, per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. DICDEF isn't about glossaries, which is a perfectly viable article type. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Glossaries are valid Wikipedia articles.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2019 (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.