Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory hole (naval)


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Glory hole (naval)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Definition of a slang word - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Passportguy (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Buckshot06(prof) 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NAD - it's already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou JohnCD - my error. Buckshot06(prof) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

*Delete WP:NAD - Already in Wikitionary, see above. Frozen4322 : Chat  12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

not a problem - I inserted this into Wiktionary as discussed when first suggested, updated dab page accordingly, and amended main article on sexual slang usage to reflect the source that this is the origination of the sexual usage - delete by all means. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree Wikipedia shouldn't have this article, but it wouldn't hurt us in the least to point to the Wiktionary entry.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, although I have set up a redirect to Wiktionary already on the disambiguation page for Glory hole Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A redirect would require that someone actually search for "Glory hole (naval)" .- not likely. If you are talking about putting a link to a seperate redirect page on the disambiguation page - I don't think that's a good idea. Again - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we start creating redirect pages for all those dictdef pages we delete we might as well abolish this policy altogether and incorporate the definitions straight out. Passportguy (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - if they search on Glory hole, they will find the dab and can get to Wiktionary from there, rather than a page they might not want to visit. I'm not bothered one way or the other, bit think the link should stand on the dab, in case somebody is searching for it and doesn't find what they are looking for there. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One point - there was as much substance and source in the article I created as in the article immediately before and after it. It also had the potential to be expanded beyond its initial content in relation to the three naval uses of the word. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this can be rescued, but currently it is just a dicdef. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment you are probably right. It might be - and if it is I'd have no objection. However the page has been around for quite a while and I don't see that happening any time soon. But if anyone can turn this into a larger article - which would have to demonstrate the importance of the subject i.e. word in some way btw - I certainly wouldn't object. Passportguy (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't do any work on it because I when I responded to the original delete request I was told it should be in Wiktionary - so I did that, and left it alone. I have been quite busy with the Viva for my PhD, and this is not my area of expertise.  I have added more detail, with quotes, one from the recollections of a Royal Navy WW2 veteran, and one connected with the Titanic.  I have copied this to my user area, so can work on this in future, as I don't really want to spend too much time on this if it is going to be deleted, and I do have other things I need to get on with.  If it survives, I'll keep doing that here, as I have time. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this dictionary definition which is already at Wiktionary as noted above. Cliff smith  talk  01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cliff. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (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.