Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book


 * 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 as per discussion below and as per Contents. DES (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary... or a pulpit. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. -- Random Say it here! 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom --Whsitchy 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has already been transwikied and does not fit the criteria for Wikipedia. AlphaEta 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwikied? I thought even Wiktionary had some criteria for inclusion... - ∅  ( ∅ ), 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out the fact that someone else had transwikied the entry and that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Whether or not it merits inclusion in the Wiktionary is not being discussed here.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Retraction Because glossaries are apparently commonplace on Wikipedia (thanks to Wazronk for pointing that out) and bias clearly played a role in the original nomination for deletion, I am retracting my vote to delete. AlphaEta 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Daniel    5127  04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a glossary not a dictionary. Glossaries are even listed on Contents as acceptable.


 * The only actual wikipedia policy that has been cited so far is: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide":
 * Well, this isn't an article on a dictionary word
 * This isn't a guide to explain how to use slang
 * This isn't a guide to explain how to use jargon
 * This isn't otherwise a usage guide.


 * The article is a "list of terms with their definitions", exactly what Contents considers a glossary. The deletion proposal is of one glossary in isolation when there's a whole category worth of others on wikipedia that are acceptable.  See Category:Glossaries.  See List of glossaries.  And meanwhile, the nominator posted on the talk page of The Urantia Book article "Lol: This article treats the book as if it isn't two thousand pages of bullhockey. Wikipedia can be so funny sometimes."   It's a deletion proposal from a bias, more than anything.


 * Being transwiki'd doesn't mean deletion on wikipedia, see Category talk:Glossaries. Wazronk 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are plenty of less notable glossaries in Wikipedia, including many video games and, oh yes, just about every letter (and #s--26 pages total) for baseball jargon--BASEBALL JARGON! Is Wikipedia Baseballpedia? "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" doesn't fly as an argument, otherwise ALL glossaries and definition articles should be wiped (which I think is stupid). Cite another non-hypocritical argument, if you can... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 10:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they should! And I'm dead serious. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, why? This is a larger issue. It's annoying having to go to another wiki to learn about a basic concept when Wikipedia is sufficient in doing this. I just don't like the seamlessness of having to jump back and forth between websites (wikis) that may or may not have interlinks (links between sites). I made this case on the Second Life wikis, too (unfortunately, no one agreed). The point is, much encyclopedic knowledge can be obtained from dictionary definitions (and glossaries) that lead to other word meanings with relevant articles via disambiguation pages (or a "set index article", which hasn't seemed to've caught on). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 11:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Due to it being a glossary and not a dictionary entry. There are many glossaries in Wikipedia.  J o s h  11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A dictionary entry would only provide the definition of the subject. This article examines a subject by providing the definition of specialized words that are only used in relation to the topic. As for your concerns about Wikipedia not being a pulpit, well that goes both ways buddy. ( H )  13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a golssary of terms. This belongs at the back of a book, not in an encylopedia.  I know they say there are other articles out there that are like this, but that is faulty reasoning.  Just because it exists somewhere else does not mean it should exist here.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Why not, if I might ask?  J o s h  17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Either they all go or they all stay. (i'm fine with them all going also) Doc13mets 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Glossaries of notable topics appear to be perfectly acceptable under wiki-regs. There are no ground for deletion here. - perfectblue 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: glossaries are acceptable in wikipedia (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a list of dicdefs. Does it become acceptable just because the word "glossary" is included in the title? - ∅  ( ∅ ), 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the glossaries in wikipedia from what I can tell all have the same format, and this article is uniform with them; the quesiton about dicdefs could be used on all the glossary articles in wikipedia ... List_of_glossaries (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc13mets and others, either all glossaries go or they all stay, and I'm fine either way. But AfD decisions are based on existing policy and so far there isn't a policy that excludes glossaries.  In fact, they currently have the same stature on wikipedia as Portals and Timelines (Contents).  The policy "wikipedia is not a dictionary" has been misinterpreted in this AfD as meaning loosely and broadly "wikipedia articles can't include definitions or lists of definitions" when the policy is more specific both in letter and spirit. The policy is that you aren't suppose to write an article with the title being a specific word or idiom and the entirety of the article being what would normally be found in a dictionary or usage guide, ie "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth."  This article doesn't do that.  A glossary is not a dictionary.  The terms explained here aren't "dicdefs", and to think so is to narrow the understanding of what a dictionary actually does (where are pronunciations, entymology, pluralizations, alternate meanings, synonyms, antonyms, illustrative quotes regarding usage, etc?)  If there's a concern about the legitimacy of glossaries in wikipedia, that needs to be settled first as a policy, it isn't something to be determined ad hoc in an AfD. Wazronk 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ... was undecided till List_of_glossaries. J. D. Redding 02:22, 31 May 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.