Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire in anger

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 to Wiktionary. Moved to fire in anger. m.o.p 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in anger

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

It's simply a phrase definition. I'm also dubious about its classification as military terminology. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 10:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 10:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It belongs more to Wikictionary than here. McMarcoP (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move content to Wiktionary and redirect. However do not delete, as there are multiple articles linked to this title and having a valid target for this information is beneficial and for those who aren't military experts. France3470 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article, recreate as desired as wiktionary entry.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move content and redirect as per France3470. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bare dictionary definition. NB: Maintaining the namespace to preserve links and provide readers with a definition is ALSO counter to policy. In addition to not being a dictionary, Wikipedia does not provide in-article links to a dictionary. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Soft redirect and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary: "A template can be used to point to a Wiktionary entry from a Wikipedia article which has encyclopedic content". Although apparently not the standard approach, such a pointer would be a net benefit in this case because it is a term being used as a bit of military jargon in multiple articles without being explained. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Other projects also suggests that "Articles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia)" but if there is no likely target (as is the case here), they can be made into a "a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry using the template {{wi}}". Doesn't seem to contradict policy to me. France3470 (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Wikipedia article, but please recreate as a Wiktionary entry. I just read this expression in a book a few minutes ago and had no clue of its meaning (English being my 3rd language, and not knowing that much of military terminology in any language anyway). My paper dictionary doesn't know about it. For once, Wiktionary wasn't helpful either. Googling resulted in tons of links where this is used and no definition in the first few pages... Quite frustrating! Fortunately, I found a Wikipedia page pointing to this one so now I know what it means. As I just had this experience, I felt it was my duty to share it in this deletion proposal discussion. Based on what I know of the Wikipedia rules, I do fully agree with the 'delete' proposal. It would however be really really nice to have an entry created in the Wiktionary for this. Thanks! 195.218.4.157 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Soft-redirect is an appropriate way to link between Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Since some users report that having a dictionary definition helps them understand some encyclopedia entries, soft-redirect to Wiktionary would seem to be a good solution in this case. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move content and redirect as per France3470. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.54.159 (talk) 05:24, 30 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.