Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK local history 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK local history terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clear violation of WP:NOTDICT Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing administrator: The prior deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/UK local history terms which as you can see became the article's talk page. The fact that we used to move VFD discussions onto talk pages is why we still have special rules about not speedily deleting article talk pages with deletion discussions on them. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, given Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries and that this is not an article about a single word, I’m not sure WP:NOTDICT is in itself a reason for deletion. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT is a policy, it is not superseded by a wikiproject. There has been no consensus to add glossaries. A dictionary and a glossary basically serve the same purpose, the only difference is a dictionary is its own book and a glossary is a section of a book. Calling this article a "glossary" is just semantics.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the very policy you're linking: Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Umimmak (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very ambiguous. I don't see words such a guild, keystone, or old being specific to UK local history (or even history in general), nor is UK local history a industry or field.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 featured glossaries, namely Glossary of bird terms and Glossary of Texas A&M University terms. — Goszei (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In total, there are about 400 ([1]). This glossary should be evaluated on its merits, instead of dismissing the idea of Wikipedia glossaries all together. — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Umimmak (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a glossary collection. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not convinced by the arguments for deleting this. --Bduke (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My concerns about this one, not withstanding the argument that it violates WP:NOTDICT, is that what is meant by "local history terms". To me this is very vague and could virtually include anything. Certainly some of the terms there at the moment are not just confined to local history, nor are they confined to the UK - Bastion, Keystone and Citadel being clear examples. The definition for Wynd is also suspect - not all Wynds in Scotland could be said to be exactly the same as alleys and the term is not unique to Scotland, but was also found in some parts of the North of England. If something likes this is to be on Wikipedia, the definitions would not to be supported by clear links to sources. Dunarc (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDICT. Tessaracter (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIC. This is an unsourced orphan which just links to existing wiki articles, so it does not add value. LizardJr8 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2021 (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.