Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chortled

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 Redirect to Jabberwocky#Glossary. 7 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chortled

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

~~Simple dictionary definition, should be deleted. As an alternate, if important enough perhaps link to wiktionary~~ ~~[1]~~ 7 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - redirect to Jabberwocky#Glossary per Uncle G. 7 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per comment by Uncle G. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7, why not write out what you mean. Most editors, even veteran editors have no idea what WP:DICDEF means. "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Can't editors redirect to wiktionary without a AFD? Ikip (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Expanded above. Yes, editors can redirect to Wiktionary without AFD. However not every word in Wiktionary needs to have an article in WP. I personally feel that this article does not need to exist here at all, even as a redirect, but I submit to the community for possible deletion, and as an alternative a redirect might also be appropriate. Thanks. 7 01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should very probably exist as a redirect, at the very least in order to stop this happening again, and that redirect should be to Jaberwocky#Glossary, which not only duplicates this content in its entirety (albeit with better sourcing), but links to Wiktionary already. Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Uncle G - I hadn't found the Jabberwocky article. I'll send a note to SoCalSuperEagle and see if he wants to reconsider and we can close this early. 7 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Jabberwocky article; after having compared its definition of the word chortled to the contents of the article Chortled, I agree that a redirect would be better than a delete in this case. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 04:34, 26 August 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.