Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tankie
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 merge to Communist Party of Great Britain. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tankie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term exists, and the article was recently improved significantly but it clearly has too many issues of original research. It belongs in wikitionary at best. In addition, the term is also used to describe members of certain british military unit - furthering the issue of it being a definition rather than an encyclopedic term. Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- wiktionary. Nonnotable slang. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and perhaps Wiktionary if they'll have it. The term is also slang for members of the tank regiment. It's not notable and the references in the article are hopeless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify-- This is little beyond a glorified dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect & Merge into the article Communist Party of Great Britain. Given that there are reliable sources that verify the term; and it is an alternate name of a faction of individuals within the Communist Party of Great Britain, I therefore support merger of verified content into an appropriate section of the Communist Party of Great Britain article, and a redirect left in the article's space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The crisis in the CPGB over the 1956 intervention in Hungary, and subsequent events, is only sketchily referred to in the main article and is notable enough for an article in its own right. But this is not the way to do it. A redirect to Communist Party of Great Britain would, though, be wrong. As pointed out, the primary meaning of Tankie is in reference to a tank crew - eg in a current BBC programme. That was the whole point of the usage in the CPGB (for those too young to remember, the use of Warsaw Pact tanks against counter-revolutionary elements characterised the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in particular). --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear that the term has multiple usages, one that is primary the Tank Crew mention, and the other that is a term for members of the CPGB. Perhaps the best solution then would be to redirect the term to Tank#Crew and leave a hatnote there regarding the verified usage of the term for members of the CPGB.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Communist Party of Great Britain in reduced form; this is about one aspect of that group's history. Sandstein 08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also go with that merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (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.