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 sack as Dhartung suggested. The term 'sacked' is almost as ambiguous as the term 'sack'. The etymological discussion in the present article is interesting, but wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for discussion of etymology. I see nothing worth saving in the original article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacked[edit]

Sacked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possible candidate to be moved over to Wiktionary, or maybe just needs to get zapped. I leave it up to the community on this one, thus nominating it for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article has quite a bit on the origins of the term making it more than just a dictdef. - Icewedge (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Termination of employment#Involuntary termination. Buc (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to sack, which already provides disambiguation to numerous topics (e.g. the sacking of a city). There are a variety of terms (fired, pink-slipped, etc.) and all have rather obvious derivations, best dealt with at Wiktionary or briefly within termination of employment or firing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 21 June 2008 (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.