Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church usher


 * 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Church usher

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already exists on Wiktionary. Otto4711 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, the article is mainly a dictionary definition and may be of more use there. VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... and this is not a dictionary article. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about church ushers.  It currently stands at one paragraph.  But that's part of what being a stub is.  Editors are making the usual mistake of confusing "short" with "dictionary".  I'm sure that, taking in hand the various books on the subject (e.g. ISBN 0805435174, ISBN 1591608937, and ISBN 0310247632) as well as other sources, editors could expand that stub to a full article.  Thus this is a perfectly valid stub article with scope for expansion.  We don't delete those.  Please familiarize yourselves with our Deletion policy and our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, as well as User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage.  You should be expanding stubs, not nominating them for deletion.  Keep. Uncle G 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. --Brewcrewer 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly more than a dictionary definition, but less than an "article".....if only there were a term used to describe that type of thing. - Rjd0060 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into any appropriate article. Incidentally, Wiktionary has an entry for usher but on the topic of church ushers it seems less complete than this Wikipedia article. So I wouldn't rule out transferring to Wiktionary either. But my vote is to keep it on Wikipedia. Fg2 07:24, 4 December 2007 (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.