Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heck (2nd nomination)

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 redirect. W.marsh 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck[edit]

Is there any truth to this? If so, does it merit inclusion in Wikipedia? Voortle 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what? Yes, it's truthful, and yes, it merits inclusion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry; the word "Heck" is no more than a polite euphemism for "Hell", which arose in the USA mid-west when the use of the word "Hell" was out of the question. Redirect, surely, but not a separate article. The article as an individual entity is nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony.bradbury. --FireV 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And... is there a reason why polite euphemisms don't get an article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here longer than I have. You can tell me about Wiki policy!--Anthony.bradbury 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Huh? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Heck" is cruft. It is not notable enough to have it's own article. As Anthony.bradbury said, it's better off as a redirect. --FireV 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell or wherever. Unsourced as to the afterlife concept, fails WP:WINAD for the euphemism. Sandstein 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell, although I think there should be an article detailing common euphemisms such as this one. Danny Lilithborne 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use of the word is not exactly the same as "hell". Yes, article is truthful. --- RockMFR 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell because it is a polite euphemism, but not a separate afterlife, despite what Dilbert says.-- danntm ^T _C 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell, this is clearly another word for that subject, the subject of a euphemism of hell is not worthy of an article of it's own. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell or transwiki to Wiktionary. Very little of the information is suitable for a merge, unless someone can find some sources for the statements. Agent 86 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info in this article is not worthy to go to Hell.Edison 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell or delete per danntm. -- Victor Lighthill 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where the Hell Is Heck? (title of a BC comic book) Redirect to Hell (and I don't mean Hell, Michigan!). B.Wind 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell or delete.--WaltCip 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Sow the field with Salt to prevent re-creation. Word belongs in Wiktionary, and there should be a sentence about this idea in Dilbert, but the rest is unreferenced original research. WMMartin 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell - fails due to WP:OR, redirect rather then delete, because why not? --T-rex 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Heck is also a common surname, and at one point (in the possesive Heck's) a department store. The entry should begin with the fact that it is a euphemism for Hell or possibly Purgatory (with links), mention that it is also a common name, and then if need be discuss examples of use. It should *not* state what Heck -is- exactly as there is not a singular, well defined, well accepted usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.135.194 (talk • contribs)

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.