Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of exercise terms

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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of exercise terms[edit]

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

This article, although labeled as a glossary, seems more like a very random collection of elementary-level dictionary definitions. A double Prod tag that raised WP:DICDEF concerns was removed the article's creator. Warrah (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the article creator. This weekend I stumbled across the inactive Health and Fitness project, which I decided I'd get going again. This article was in the "to do" box as a requested article, so I started it. I tagged the page {{newpage}} (which I see has been removed) as I was unfamiliar with the glossary MoS. The short entries were so I could build the page, and I removed the hasty DICDEF tag because I felt that the newpage tag made it quite clear that I was working on the article and was familiar with the appropriate guidelines. The addition of short "B" entries was so I could see how {{TOC}} worked. Ordinarily I would have started this in user space but I was hoping that the reactivation of the portal would encourage other users to take a look and start helping. I stronly disagree with this AfD and that this article is in anyway inappropriate, but I will cease further work until an outcome as I don't want to waste my time Thedarxide (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate article for Wikipedia, basically an attempt at a dictionary (from A to B?). --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete As per above. Meaningful Username (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Including glossaries would be a mess in WP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the following need to go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/List_of_glossaries Thedarxide (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: looking through the list here, I can see we've had a lot of AfD discussions on "glossary" articles, and there seem to be comparable amounts of keep, delete, and no consensus outcomes. I had seconded the PROD on this one, but would now say I'm neutral leaning toward delete if only because this does not seem like a particularly useful glossary. But if WikiProject Health and Fitness thinks it is, then who am I to argue. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a general decision would be nice, because Glossary of nutrition terms & Glossary of public health terms are on there too. Personally, I think the one under debate and nutrition would be useful, but public health terms leaves me stumped. I don't know whether that's an American term? Thedarxide (talk) 07:49, 16 December 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.