Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front line (as expression)

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. — Jake Wartenberg 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Front line (as expression)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Article was prodded for that reason shortly after its creation in March 2009; prod was removed by article's creator with a defense that rather misses the point ("This definition isn't currently explained elsewhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary, so we must create a new article for it"). The point being, of course, that there's no reason for an article that does nothing, or can do nothing, besides define a word or phrase. (And this definition is now included in Wiktionary, whether or not it was there in March 2009.)

I would request that anyone who votes to keep this article offer up a suggestion for a new title, as the current one obviously does nothing to disambiguate the topic, but the topic is so vague I can't think what else would be appropriate. Propaniac (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As creator of that article, I appreciate it is WP:DICDEF and I *thought* I had marked it for transclusion into Wiktionary (perhaps such a marking got removed when it was.) No need for it here now. I would not be too didactic about dicdefs that are not in Wiktionary though; we have to get them in there somehow, and personally I am busy enough on Wikipedia without learning another Wiki. Being a WP:PNT regular (apparently) I am well aware of the occasional annoyance when it seems another editor has not really made an effort when creating the article, but I don't in this case that's really justified (I forget what article it was used on, but it definitely needed to be linked from it – or perhaps better, reworded on that article, which for some reason I was reluctant to do.) SimonTrew (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you saying you support deletion? (Also, are you saying that you think it's a good idea to create Wikipedia articles containing only dictionary definitions, because it's easier for you to do that and mark them for transclusion than to learn how to edit Wiktionary? That is really terrible advice. Especially if you're then going to deny prods so that in order to delete these dictionary definitions you no longer care about after they've been transcluded, they have to go through the AFD process. I really hope you're not saying this is a good method to "get [those definitions] into [Wiktionary] somehow.") Propaniac (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICDEF. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is already in Wiktionary where it belongs. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.