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.
Per
very brief discussion, this is considered a non-notable topic. I'd prefer to see any truly notable terms merged into
Scouts Australia than have this deleted outright. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete WP is not supposed to be a dictionary or glossary. I know that other stuff exists, but would like to see them nominated too. Rather see the list hosted on another site and linked from main article.
Borock (
talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Although
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, stand-alone glossaries are an acceptable kind of list article. See
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. That said, I'm not certain this list meets other criteria such as notability and independent sourcing. Color me neutral toward this deletion discussion.
Cnilep (
talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article has concerned me for a long time, but I hoped it might develop into something useful, or be changed by the author involved. This has not happened. It is time for it to go. There are no similar articles for Scouting in other places. It is also largely specific to Scouts Australia. --
Bduke(Discussion) 21:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Question - I don't see a
Glossary of scouting terms, which would seem to have a much easier time satisfying
WP:LISTN, but I don't know the extent to which these only apply to Australian Scouting? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Per
very brief discussion, this is considered a non-notable topic. I'd prefer to see any truly notable terms merged into
Scouts Australia than have this deleted outright. —
Jkudlick •
t •
c •
s 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete WP is not supposed to be a dictionary or glossary. I know that other stuff exists, but would like to see them nominated too. Rather see the list hosted on another site and linked from main article.
Borock (
talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Although
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, stand-alone glossaries are an acceptable kind of list article. See
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. That said, I'm not certain this list meets other criteria such as notability and independent sourcing. Color me neutral toward this deletion discussion.
Cnilep (
talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article has concerned me for a long time, but I hoped it might develop into something useful, or be changed by the author involved. This has not happened. It is time for it to go. There are no similar articles for Scouting in other places. It is also largely specific to Scouts Australia. --
Bduke(Discussion) 21:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Question - I don't see a
Glossary of scouting terms, which would seem to have a much easier time satisfying
WP:LISTN, but I don't know the extent to which these only apply to Australian Scouting? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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.