Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonk (slang)

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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. The primary policies to be considered in this discussion are:

• WP:NOT and, more specificially, Not a Dictionary
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Notability

Consensus by silence seems to suggest that the subject of "Wonk" is notable, and the content of the subject's entry on Wikipedia is verifiable. However, consensus falls short of leaning in favour of this entry not being classed as a Dictionary entry—that is to say, consensus suggests that "Wonk (slang)" fails to adhere to WP:NOT#Dictionary.

To that end, it is apparent that this entry cannot remain on Wikipedia in its present state. Proceeding forward, there are two possible courses of action:

• Rewrite the entry in a style that satisfies WP:DICDEF#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles,
• Transwiki the entry to an appropriate Wikimedia project, where it would be more suitable for inclusion
• Delete the article outright.

I am reluctant to undertake the third course of action, in that, as expressed in the discussion, the entry is both well-written and well-sourced, and it would, to all intents and purposes, be a waste to do so. As for the first course of action, no editors have suggested nor offered this in the discussion, and it is not the purview of the closing administrator to select alternative conclusions to a debate that are out with the consensus expressed.

To this end, I am listing the entry for transwiki to Wiktionary, and deleting the article.
AGK (contact) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonk (slang)

Wonk (slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Dictdef. Well referenced, but a still a dictdef, and as such it should be transwikied to wictionary or some such place -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom's reasons which are absolutely correct. Transwiki is OK too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing more than dictionary material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikt. There's enough here for a useful article, unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The article shows multiple possibilities for expansion. DGG (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Expand it. It's getting there to article status. Gary King (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Geek which is already covering the topic better. Note that we already have an article on the main notable usage: policy wonk. Redirection is the way to resolve this overlap. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2008 (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.