Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amidships


 * 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 of the debate was redirect to Glossary of nautical terms. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Amidships
dictionary def --Bachrach44 02:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bachrach44 -Nv8200p talk 02:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jasmol 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - I'd just like to clarify this bit. Most dictionary definitions can be expanded to make them in to encyclopaedic entries.  If a term has 298,000 google hits, 825 of them unique, then surely it can be expanded, right?  I mean there's no dispute that it is a valid term in regular use, is there?  I'd like to see the policy on this kind of thing. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is that encyclopedias and dictionaries serve radically different purposes. An article on what a word means, its etymology, how it's used, and so forth, belongs in a dictionary and not an encyclopedia, regardless of length and quality.  It becomes an encyclopedic topic when there's more to say about it than that: when it's gained cultural significance in some way, as the name of some notable entity, or as a concept that requires a detailed explanation, or whatever.  Thinking about it, the only way I can see "amidships" becoming an encyclopedic topic would be as part of an article on nautical terminology - such as, for example, Glossary of nautical terms, which already has this term.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect. I don't think there's any way this could actually be turned into an encyclopedia article; I agree with Haeleth worthawholebean talkcontribs 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Glossary of nautical terms. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Dictionary.com says it's an adverb, which make generally bad article titles. There's nothing to say about the adverb. The area on the boat, may deserve an article, though, but that area would be called something else if we were to use a noun for the title per convention.- Mgm|(talk) 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Glossary of nautical terms as above. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.