Deletion of Glossary of jive talk

Comment: per Bearian and per . As it says in our policy: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature..." This useful and interesting article meets this condition. Nothing gained by destroying the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTIONARY)

Comment: per  - this topic is extremely well-documented in reliable sources. I have no problem with ''short'' glossaries (much less than 400 words
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Glossaries are well-established content at Wikipedia.  For numerous examples, see :category:glossaries which has so many entries that there are sub-categories such as :category:glossaries of mathematics and :category:glossaries of science.  We even have a Wikipedia:Glossary|Wikipedia glossary to list terms like AfD and !vote.   recognises and accepts such content, saying "''Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...''".  The topic is notable and well-sourced and so it's just a matter of development and improvement in accordance with our |deletion and |editing policies: "''If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.''" "''Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:DEL||WP:PRESERVE)