Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical chunder

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 of the debate was merge and redirect to vomiting. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical chunder

neologism אריאל יהודה 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
In the name of a compromise, I would support a merge per Smerdis of Tlön. --אריאל יהודה

• Delete, per nom. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote it cos I didn't know what it was and it wasn't on here. Now I do. Whilst not particularly important information, its worth keeping. Mnd999 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, topic of academic study in pharmacology. [1] Kappa 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - ~1500 Google hits so I'm reluctant to vote delete. Move to Wiktionary maybe? Samw 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• After thorough cleanup for encyclopedic tone and style, suggest any remaing information of value could be merged and redirected with vomiting. This is a behaviour that's been reported since ancient Rome at least. — Smerdis of Tlön 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön Zunaid 09:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön. Sliggy 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As someone who googled to find the meaning of the phrase Tactical Chunder I am very dissapointed to find that this article will be deleted. The subject matter is clearly quite vulgar but none the less a part of British culture. I believe the article could be rewritten in a more "encyclopedic manner" but it should not be deleted. With the exception of personal distaste, what reasons do people have for deleting this entry? I believe a merger would be acceptable as long as google can still find it relatively easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.72.113 (talk • contribs)
  • There is no one who has suggested deletion due to vulgar content (and honestly, we have pages based on much more vulgar things). The only reason so far provided for deletion is that the page is a simple definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --אריאל יהודה
    • I disagree that this is purely a definition. I deliberately attempted to place some social context in the article. A definifition would be 'making oneself throw up in order to drink more' Mnd999

- I say keep also, very useful to find the meaning behind the term via google. Keep up the good work Wikipedia! 20:59 22 December 2005 (UK)

- I would be happy with a Merge with vomiting provided that this type of vomiting is clearly differentiated and the social context is kept. Would also be happy to keep. Mnd999

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.