Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zonger

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. Spinning Spark 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zonger[edit]

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

This article is basically a dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's kind of an essay trying to be a dictionary definition or maybe original lexicographical research. Either way, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe Wiktionary? Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwikify the dictionary definition (a slang term) to Wiktionary. The list of "references" (so called - not references for the article content) points to us having a valid article on the Zong massacre (on a slave ship). It might be possible to add a note to that article on the content of this one, but I would not encourage more than one sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Zong massacre article. It's worth a footnote at least.--Auric talk 01:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge. This is a dictionary definition. As for a merge, it's relationship to the Zong massacre is speculative and is not supported by reliable sources; urbandictionary.com is not a reliable source. I'll also add that the dicitonary definition as claimed in the article not supported by the urbandictionary.com reference supplied. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 1 April 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.