Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickboxing dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. This is strictly a dictionary. Sr13 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kickboxing dictionary

Kickboxing dictionary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a glossary of terms. Some are used in kickboxing. Most are also general usage terms. Violates WP:NOT#DICT. It's not an article about a "Kickboxing dictionary". It purports to be a kickboxing dictionary. Evb-wiki 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete but possibly add a reference or link to the main article on Kickboxing. The article states "Compliments of the author Frank Hays". If there's a book or magazine article out there that's a glossary of terms used in this sport it might be useful to someone interested in the subject. But if so, it already exists out there so Wikipedia does not need to completely duplicate it. As much as people quibble over them, there are very good reasons why most articles have an "External Links" section. -Markeer 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Copyvio Corpx 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not copyvio since the author says its not copyrighted. Corpx 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP is not a dictionnary/glossary/annex.--JForget 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until a broader policy on glossaries is developed. Despite WP:NOT#DICT, we have many glossaries on Wikipedia, see Category:Glossaries and Wikipedia:List of glossaries, and previous proposals to delete and transwiki them en masse to Wiktionary have failed.--Yannick 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Glossaries!--Yannick 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete people seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plain and simple. VanTucky (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Its just a cut and paste with no intrinsic value that can't be covered by an external link. It is a copyright violaction - it is not enough to say that the author says it isn't - there is a protocol to follow.Peter Rehse 07:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No evidence it's not a copyvio except a statement from editor. --Nate1481( t/c) 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Looked @ the site copy & paste job may be legal but is a list of techniques useful? --Nate1481( t/c) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's explicitly a dictionary -- Whpq 14:22, 23 July 2007 (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.