Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall pass (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Hall monitor. A recreation after a rewrite and expansion with more sources remains possible. Sandstein 08:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hall pass

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very short WP:DICDEF article, uncited since 2007, previous AfD not far from delete verdict. It's hard to see why this should not simply be deleted, though it could perhaps go to Wiktionary if there's anything to add there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Not sure if we are looking at the same previous AfD. Nine votes were cast, five for keep, four for transwiki and one (the nominator) for delete. In any event, this will never be more than a dictionary definition, but transwiki seems the better option than delete. Safiel (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current article is a dictionary definition, but I refuse to believe that is the upper limit of what this article could become. Typically, this is where I link a bunch of sources and go on with life, but I'm actually going to see if I can't rewrite this myself over the next few days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hall monitor, with a hatnote there to the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hall monitor until such time as a proper treatment of the topic can be done. I agree that the article could become more, such as the terms use in the modern vernacular outside of the original context, but commenting on what we have right now, redirect is most appropriate, as it is a viable search term. Crow^Caw 23:35, 15 October 2016 (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.