Deletion of Glossary of graffiti

Comment: Per , "''Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...''".  See :category:Wikipedia glossaries for many other examples
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: While some {{em|specific entries}} are presently a bit , this is a #Surmountable problems|surmountable problem.  Various entries are already of a properly encyclopedic scope.  This is a completely normal :Category:Wikipedia glossaries|glossary-format stand-alone list article, though a bit under-developed. It's long enough already that merging it into another article as an MOS:ELIST|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 {{lang|la|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:AADD)

Comment: With the Graffiti article presently at over 105kb (), qualifies as a valid  article. Also, per , "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZERULE||WP:SPINOUT||WP:DICDEF)

Comment: I may have misunderstood the meaning of #DICT. Nonetheless, the contents are poor and written like guidebook for taggers by taggers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)