Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravy train (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JForget 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gravy train
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a dictionary-like article that simply defines the term and covers usage of the term. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a dictionary. This topic does not seem to be able to support an encyclopedic treatment. Encyclopedic articles are not about the term, they are about the thing. This article is about the term and its usage.

Further evidence that this is the case is that the article is very short and contains more or less the same information as the Wiktionary article, and has not been extended in the 5 years since it was started. In fact, in my opinion the Wiktionary entry is slightly better, and more accurate.

Contrary to popular belief, there isn't actually a done enough policy, but if there was, the article has not done enough, and I see no evidence that it can ever do so. - Wolfkeeper  02:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —-  Wolfkeeper  02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The content is comprised of four definitions and an etymology. The three sources are the Oxford English Dictionary's blog, Etymology online, and Wikipedia. One is not reliable, and the other two are more suited to dictionary than encyclopedia content. Cnilep (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. But with a redirect to Wiktionary, as it does sound as if it might not be an idiom. Rothorpe (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete because this is not a dictionary. There are a few words and phrases that are important enough so that an article can be written about their history, a notable example is the "N-word". "Gravy train" does not seem to be in the same class of importance. Borock (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and rediredt to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move Gravy train (disambiguation) over this title Deleting this unsourced one-line definition would cut off any redirects to the disambig, and since that title has plenty of disambigs out, the preferred outcome should be to move the disambig over this title.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with disambig per Mrschimpf. Article doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (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.