Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk point

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walk point

Can this ever be more than a dictdef? If it can't, shouldn't it be in Wiktionary, not here? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn - looks much better. I wouldn't have thought it could be expanded but BusterD proved me wrong - well done. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Improve Give it a second look, after my redo. It's much better now. If this is given to Mil Hist group, this will get better and earn a deserved place in tactics category. If not, no biggie. Too important a term to discard without due consideration. BusterD 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it is a better-written article now, but it still only offers evidence of the term being used by one person, which falls a long way short of the notability criteria. Only 575 ghits, which suggests that it is a slang term with very limited currency. Maybe, after more investigation, this might turn to be something to incoprorate in another artucle, but it's way short of the evidence needed to justify a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not intending to belabor this, but as an established term in military vernacular, I'm not sure ghits is an appropriate measure of notability in this case. Yet, I get 38,000 ghits on "Walking Point". That's notable. The article needs to be tagged for improvement, not deleted. IMHO, but I'll accept any reasonable ruling. BusterD 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, after improvement by BusterD this might be viable article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Requires expansion all the same. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been renamed Take point as the more common form of the idiom. The article still needs work. In particular, other published recognition of the idiom needs to be cited, but the idiom is definitely in current usage not only militarily, but in business and politics. Bejnar 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question about the above (because AfD process is new to me). Is it correct to movepage when an articles up for AfD? Is movepage a possible option in addition to Keep or Delete? When I did this a few months ago I remember being admonished not to do. BusterD 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• yes they can, but it also requires moving the AFD debate, or at least doing an extra link to it, which people often forget. It's not usually recommended to move a page while afd is in progress, but it is possible. Grutness...wha? 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article has been expanded. Still needs work though. T REX_speak 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep given improvements to article, needs some additional work but is workable now. Seraphimblade 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nom withdrawn - see above. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 24 October 2006 (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.