Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of wine terms


 * 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 -- JForget 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of wine terms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These terms belong in a category, and "List of wine terms" would be the same thing as it is now. ^demon[omg plz] 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- there are 79 glossaries listed at Special:Prefixindex/Glossary, plus more where "Glossary" is not the first term. Let's make a guideline first, then apply it evenly to all glossaries, rather than make an ad hoc decision on an arbitary one of them. Matchups (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"There are a number of formats currently used on Wikipedia, both generalized and specialized, for articles that are lists. (...) Formats for specialized lists include:  (...)   2. glossaries, a type of annotated list, where the annotations are definitions of the list's entries, such as Glossary of philosophical isms"
 * Delete. My understanding is that we already have an official policy for this - WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This seems pretty clear to me.--Michig (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - You must be joking. The saying you quote: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" WP:NOT refers to policy about short articles which define a single word or indiscriminate collections of information, this clearly is neither.  This is an excellent example of a list WP:LIST which can be used for navigation and information. Please see WP:SAL, below is an excerpt from the guideline:
 * Why would there be a guideline for glossaries if there was not a place for them on Wikipedia?:--Earthdirt (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No I wasn't joking, and please try to keep your comments civil. WP:DICT stated until recently that lists of definitions of words (as opposed to lists of related articles) are against guidelines, but someone has recently changed that. Someone should really sort the guidelines out so that we can simply apply them consistently in these discussions rather than having to debate them - maybe acceptable articles would then not be nominated. Many of the entries in this glossary are dictionary definitions that are not links to other articles, but I've removed my vote of delete, as I'm not that bothered either way.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you Michig, I was actually referring to the deletion nomination for this article in general, rather than your comment in particular, the order just got a bit messed up. I am not familiar with the past wording of WP:DICT, esspecially since that would so clearly contradict WP:LIST and WP:SAL, there does seem to be some be a widespread misunderstanding of lists on Wikipedia.Earthdirt (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Consuelo D&#39;Guiche (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Earthdirt. Also, note on WP:NOT: Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. --Enhanceddownloadbird (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A "descriptive article" is not the same as a list of word definitions.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful per WP:LIST. Have not similar cases been transwikied to Wiktionary and now exist twofold? M URGH   disc.  18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As Matchups has noted Wikipedia has many valid and useful glossary articles. Feel free to peruse the Portal:List of glossaries for more examples. As a member of the Wine Project I refer to this list often for aid in linking terms like blending, dégorgement, legs, etc that don't have an article because they would be nothing more than a dicdef. Having this article saves us easily from needing 15-20 dicdef stub articles and that is a benefit that you simply can not get from a category. AgneCheese/Wine 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SAL under the heading glossaries "being used primarily for navigational purposes or for developing Wikipedia content (redlinks), and whether readers are mostly looking for a specific topic, a group of related topics, or just browsing." Also some terms wouldn't be fit for a category such as "Young", "Extra dry" or "Split" nor having the terms placed in Wiktionary.▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡ Talk 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortified keep A good example of how a list should look like to fullfill wp:list & wp:sal--victor falk (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sirex98 and Agne27.  Keeper  |  76  22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep valuable collection of information useful as an adjunct to Wine and related articles. Fg2 (talk) 10:26, 21 November 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.