Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick bay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. NAC by —S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Sick bay[edit]
- Sick bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is no more than a dicdef, and a pretty poor one at that. It has survived here for over 7 years, and has not improved at all in that time. There have been occasional additions, subsequently removed (e.g. an assertion that sick bays are always in the same place on Royal Navy ships because Nelson so decreed over 200 years ago!), but there has been nothing that suggests that any encyclopedic content could be added to raise this above the dicdef level. Nor has anyone thought fit to mention that the term is used much more widely that the US Navy/Marines. Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary, of course, which is what we ought to do with dictionary definitions. Sick bay is a plausible search term, so Wikipedia should point the searcher to useful information. We should certainly not just give the searcher a redlink that encourages them to write a new article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Emeraude (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can just set up the soft redirect per WP:BRD without any further ado; if you're happy to withdraw the nomination, Emeraude, we can close this under WP:SK ground 1 without further discussion?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, go for it. Nom. withdrawn. Emeraude (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2010 (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.