Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow slang

Glasgow slang was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT

An anonymous user has started a page for Glasgow slang

Example: Eeejit= An idiot,Polis= The Police,A Piece= A Sandwitch,klatty= To be very very dirty.

Is this worth keeping? - Kums 05:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Unresolved/lost VfD. Would be worth keeping if it explained what the heck it was. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• There is already a paragraph on this subject in the main Glasgow article. Delete. ping 07:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A List Of article would be one thing, but this is another. Glaswegian slang is pretty deep, but the entries here are self-evident. A serious article about the subject would be a keep, but this is not it, and it would require an expert editor on clean up to make it worthy. Geogre 13:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this deletionism: deleting stubs is not the right way to go about achieving a full aritcle. Joe D (t) 00:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Deletion-ism? A stub that is untrue is not better than a redlink. A misstatement is not better than a silence. An inappropriate statement is similarly not going to take the place of a proper one. A discussion of the slang of Glasgow is conceivably quite interesting, if it is at least somewhat rigorous. A list, however, serves little purpose, and a self-evident list is worse yet. Geogre 01:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that the information is factually inacurate? None of the above reasons are a problem if we move to Glasgow dialect and improve the article. Joe D (t) 01:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Glasgow dialect Merge with Glasgow patter, add a proper introduction etc, cleanup list. Keep. Joe D (t) 23:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks interesting and useful to me. It's in need of a lot of cleanup, as many people have noted already, but that has nothing to do with whether to delete it. Factitious 05:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Glasgow patter looks like a better place for it. Merge, redirect. Factitious 09:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: meaningful, significant, useful. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to Glasgow patter. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to existing article on Glasgow patter. -- Netoholic @ 08:21, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. Needs solid references though - David Gerard 12:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Tmh 13:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to existing article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Glasgow patter. •→Iñgólemo←• 06:15, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Glasgow patter. --ZaQ 00:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.