Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wowser

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 keep. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wowser[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia entry about the concept of a wowser or lout, but rather a dictionary entry on the word "wowser". Per Wikipedia policy, words can be encyclopedic topics, but there is nothing here outside of what would be found in a comprehensive dictionary entry. Powers ^T 16:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's more than just dictionary content here, for example the reference from The Oxford History of Australia: vol 4: 1901–42 about their place in Australian society. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Australian Encyclopaedia has a nice definition: "an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder". Such types are sadly all too common and we have many articles about them: puritan, bluenose, busybody, killjoy, &c. There may be some scope for merger but the Antipodean history is distinctive and so perhaps best kept under this heading. Warden (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'm going to assume that this article has been improved greatly since nomination, as it is absolutely an encyclopedic approach to a discussion of the word. This article is not a dictionary definition, and is totally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Colonel Tom 08:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was a dictionary definition; I said it's a dictionary entry. Powers ^T 12:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you did. My apologies. If you prefer, my last sentence above can now read "This article is not a dictionary entry, and is totally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." Colon el Tom 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that would be out of place in a comprehensive dictionary entry. Powers ^T 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as highly notable term in Australia, as a Google Books or Google Scholar search will show. -- 202.124.75.178 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (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.