Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang terms for police officers

Add links
Source: 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. MBisanz talk 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for police officers

List of slang terms for police officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. This is the 2nd nomination for this list. The last debate was held in 2005 and reached no consensus see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slang and offensive terms for police officers, a lot has changed since 2005. Deadly∀ssassin 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A lot may have changed since 2005, but has it done so in relation to this article? It may not always be wrong to put an article up for deletion a second time, but it is often not good practice to do so unless there have been significant changes. The one time I ever did this myself I was able to argue that discussions had moved on, and it was deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, this is an article of some legitimate sociological interest, more than just a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. PatGallacher (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been changes in terms of how Wikipedia cosniders notability, and the emergence of other projects like Wikitionary which didn't exist back then. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many such lists on the Wikipedia. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: "Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid argument. See WP:WAX. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is at least as good as any other. And it's not a dictionary entry, but a pop culture reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it as good as any other? In a deletion discussion, it would help to use facts and policies other than personal opinion. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean to say is that some people would want to delete this list for other reasons that have no link to wiki quality standards. If you look at it objectively, you will find nothing wrong, just as you won't with others. That was just a reaction, though. My argument to keep is my second sentence. I agree with PatGallacher. This has the value of holding a cultural reference. Maziotis (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can't find your way to WP:NOT it's amazing you found your way to this discussion. Please don't accuse me of having ulterior motives in the future and assume good faith. Oh sorry, I mean WP:AGF, happy now? --Deadly∀ssassin 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply for Maziotis. Thanks for that additional assessment, it helps your argument a lot (at least to me). Tavix (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • DeadlyAssassin, I didn't mean you personally. But I'm sure a lot of people would want this list to go since this is a list about insults, not cartoon dummies. What I meant from the beginning was that if you look at it objectively, a list of dummies is as good as a list of insults. That's what I meant. Please take notice that you are reacting to a response. If you read what I wrote at the beginning, you will see no sting there for anybody. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken. Apologies for my sharp reaction, tiredness is my only excuse. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any presently unsourced terms can be removed if reliable sources do not exist, or if the sources exist they can be added. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Such unofficial terms have been used for police officers and well documented in reliable sources for over 200 years. Peelers: [1] , [2] . "Fuzz:" [3] . "Pig:" [4] , [5] , "County mounty" [6] , [7] , etc. Try Google advanced book search and Google News archive.Edison (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original nomination didn't mention references, although as others have said the article is completely unreferenced. I don't see how this mitigates against the fact that wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as I understand where both parties are coming from and could see it go either way. Tavix (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary. The info is uncited and I see some mistakes. For instance in "5-0" a 5 liter car engine is not very large, 305 cubic inches vs a 350 cubic inch engine which would be what is really used on a police car. So it looks like people just put in stuff as they feel like it. A lot is also kind of mean-spirited. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the way to deal with mistakes is to edit; the way to deal with lack of citations is to add them. This is a possibly encyclopedic topic, and there's literature on it.DGG (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned the mistake because it is an example of the carelessness of the article's contributors. I have no special way of finding information on slang expressions for police officers. I certainly have no way of proving one doesn't exist. One the other hand someone could remove all the uncited material. Would you like me to do that? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best' way to do it is usually to source what you can, then purge what you can't. People find this far less objectionable than blind purging. WilyD 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. If I decide to do that I will do a Google search on each item to see if I can find a source for it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Police officer. Just throwing it out as a possible compromise in the discussion. I mean, when I look into an article about police officers, I would probably except some nicknames/slang terms be mentioned in there; the article is small enough that this stuff could be merged into Police officer without much a hassle as far as WP:SIZE is concerned. MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Oh, and don't be a dick about it, either! ;) MuZemike 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move sourced entries to Wiktionary and organize there using a category. Delete the rest. This isn't a list of encyclopedia articles, just a list of words/terms.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for want of any better choice. Merging into "police officers" seems odd for sure, and wiktionary does not actually have a set up for lists ... it should be edited for sources and errors, but that is not actually a valid reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. Wiktionary not only is set up for lists, it has plenty of them, including many lists of slang synonyms for things, such as d:Wikisaurus:penis. Wiktionary not only has full thesaurus capabilities, it also makes use the MediaWiki software's ability to automatically create lists. After all, a list of words is simply a category of articles, in a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sensible, encyclopaedic list, no arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain what's encyclopedic about it? It's a list of words, the definitions of which belong in Wiktionary. It's all very well for users to call it sociological, but at the moment this is just a collection of slang, and has been for years. As we know WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia are not "... slang and idiom guides." --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Strong Keep) The list will only grow more detailed in time with sources and historical and sociological details. Totally notable from a linguistics and sociology standpoint.Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were an article that describes the reason why there are so many slang names for the police and how in broad terms they developed, even the acceptance of their use in society I might tend to agree. As it stands (and has stood for a number of years) this is a list of word definitions and some etymology, you know what they call those don't you?. Calling it sociological and linguistically notable doesn't make it so. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sociological and historical details? Please cite a source that demonstrates that there even are any sociological and historical details to be discussed in an encyclopaedic fashion. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just try to do a simple google search, such as: use of pig slang sociology. I found some. Maziotis (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary; however, Wiktionary is. Besides, it's rather worrying when there are {{cn}} tags for nearly every item. Sceptre (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two arguments were already addressed several times. Maziotis (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the no citation one was, I don't think the dictionary one has. After all WP:NOT is policy. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, several can be cited. "Pig", "filth", "bobby", "Plod", and "Sweeney", most likely. I've never heard "Woodentop", though. It's like List of terms of endearment: "baby", "sweetie", "cutie" can be. "Newfoundland"? Not so much. Sceptre (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely mate, which was why I didn't include unreferenced as a reason for deletion. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No one addressed that argument by saying that wikipedia IS a dictionary. That policy was never put into question. What has been argued, by at least three editors, is that this subject is of interest for an encyclopedia, as a legitimate sociological issue. Maziotis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is your argument by that rationale then that whether the article is descriptive or not and whether it is against policy can be ignored? --Deadly∀ssassin 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simply, I don't believe that it is going against that policy. That is what some people are arguing. I believe that even while it remains non-descriptive, it is a legitimate list on wikipedia for a set of cultural references. Maziotis (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Cultural reference" is often used to disguise the fact that there isn't really an encyclopaedic article to be had. It's a woolly phrase that really doesn't mean anything concrete. The thinking behind it is almost always that cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing causes encyclopaedia articles to magically arise from nothing. Conversely, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary not only is clear policy, it is even our oldest written policy. To argue against it, one should show that an article isn't a dictionary article, or a mere collection of dictionary articles strung together in a list. So where are the sources that discuss the "sociological and historical details" claimed to exist above? Where are the sources that actually discuss something that isn't dictionary article content? What is the "sociological issue" and where has it been documented? Or are you arguing that Wikipedia should be the first to put all of these words together and document a sociological issue underpinning them, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy? Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My argument is that we have a list that is of interest for anybody who is looking for particular references in our culture (slang terms; other social aspects related to police and community). I really can't say I undestand the wiki policy on lists such as this. We seem to have them by the thousands. I did make a reference to other editors claiming a sociological background being developt in the article. As for the necessary sources, I have to say I would be very interested in seeing them myself. Maziotis (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But what is the reason that this should take place on Wikipedia? If people are interested in doing research on social trends they can look elsewhere and find the data they need. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, this would only be a deposit of those terms. We would have one place to find an extensive list of slang terms for police officers. I don't know if this is right, but it seems wikipedia is used a lot for this. On the other hand, there was the suggestion that the article itself could give an historical exposition on the phenomenon. We are still waiting for the sources. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy to Wiktionary whether or not it is kept on Wikipedia, since a copy of this probably should reside there regardless of if it exists here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_slang_terms_for_police_officers&oldid=1069819856"