Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Glomp (5th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:26, 7 February 2008 editMichig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,061 edits →Glomp: c← Previous edit Revision as of 20:30, 7 February 2008 edit undoTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,976 edits →Glomp: cmtNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
*'''Move to Wiktionary'''. On the face of it, given the previous AFDs for this article, this nomination seems a bit of a waste of time, but in my view this is little more than a dictionary definition, and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. It has refs, but these only really back up the fact that the term exists, and its source, and little else - what I would expect to see in Wiktionary.--] (]) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) *'''Move to Wiktionary'''. On the face of it, given the previous AFDs for this article, this nomination seems a bit of a waste of time, but in my view this is little more than a dictionary definition, and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. It has refs, but these only really back up the fact that the term exists, and its source, and little else - what I would expect to see in Wiktionary.--] (]) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Wiktionary already has ] for Glomp, by the way.--] (]) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC) :Wiktionary already has ] for Glomp, by the way.--] (]) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This AfD was placed by ], by the way. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:30, 7 February 2008

Glomp

AfDs for this article:
Glomp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Anon nomination, from article talk page: I just came across this while randomly browsing internet, and appalled by this absolutely unencyclopedic material. this is senseless, i'm not going to make an account to finish nominating this but please vote to delete thanks. 218.219.212.168 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Move to Wiktionary. On the face of it, given the previous AFDs for this article, this nomination seems a bit of a waste of time, but in my view this is little more than a dictionary definition, and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. It has refs, but these only really back up the fact that the term exists, and its source, and little else - what I would expect to see in Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has an entry for Glomp, by the way.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories: