Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD glossary

2000 AD glossary

Violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, article content moved to wikt:Transwiki:2000 AD glossary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much I can add here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there's a reason we have Wiktionary. Spellcast 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as explained on the talk page this fails the transwiki the criteria for inclusion and should never have been transwikied. (Emperor 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't know that; thanks for pointing that out. Even so, I'm not sure that this is something that belongs in Wikipedia. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is possibly no ideal solution (I flagged this quite a while ago and nothing has come up) - it doesn't fit at Wiktionary (and will/should probably be deleted eventually when someone goes through the backlog) and there probably isn't a suitable wikia wiki to transwiki it to (as may have been the solution at some point in the future), so we'll just see where how things cards fall. (Emperor 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems like a pretty clear NOT violation. Where not already covered there the various bits of it should probably be merged back into the articles from which they came. Artw 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory for terms mentioned in a tv show - Also based on WP:OR Corpx 02:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified through reliable sources, original research. This should NOT be deleted on the basis that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as glossaries are not dictionaries, nor are their material more suited for a dictionary. Please see here for a more expanded rationale why glossaries in general should not be transwikied and deleted under WP:NOT#DICT.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thing is it isn't WP:OR/WP:V as there are well established lists [1] and if anyone had flagged that angle it would have been possible to find more - I'd imagine there are lists in the Annuals as well as the various RPG sourcebooks. (Emperor 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Cleary violating the Wikipedia is not a glossary/annex/dictionary criteria.--JForget 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to WP:DICT here is a complete misunderstanding of what WP:DICT says and means, making many of the comments here moot. Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries. The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty "test case" basis is to attack all articles that contain glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack WP:SUMMARY as invalid. Furthermore in this specific case, the article fails the transwiki criteria to begin with, it does in fact have at least one cited source, and the entries are in many cases encyclopedic, providing background and history that would not be found in any dictionary entry.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in support of strong keep: To quote from WP:DICT: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." Glossaries are "articles...about...concepts". Glossaries are not articles about "a word or an idiomatic phrase", and fail the wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used...)" Glossaries (when properly written) clearly do the latter, not the former (any that does the former will usually be an obvious WP:NOR and/or WP:NPOV violation). I could go on, but it seems unnecessary to point out every single way in which WP:DICT simply does not apply here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]