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.

Squirreling[edit]

WP:NOTDICDEF. The article is even structured specifically like a dictionary entry. There are 2 main uses of the term described in the article, both of which are poorly sourced and not notable enough for an article in their own right. Any relevant content related to the actual animal is already present in the related article Squirrel. And any relevant content related to Scientology jargon could be incorporated into the article Scientology terminology - but if and only if that material could be sourced to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, which is not really discussed in any third-party sources in anything more than a brief mention of one sentence or less. Thus, nothing really of interest to merge anywhere else that would be useful or able to be sourced to independent sources, so recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly move appropriate content to Wiktionary as Wikipedia is not a dictionary Anonymous101 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Good Damon 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone who goes looking for the term "squirreling" is almost certainly looking for information on independent Scientology. Doesn't making a redirect and modifying the target article to explain that this is an offensive term only used by the CHurch of Scientology make more sense? - 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment: The Freezone folks would not appreciate such a label which is highly POV from the cofs. There is no reason that the article should be retained.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to reply to commet: Wikipedia's coverage isn't determined by what the subjects appreciate, I thought, or else the Church of Scientology's coverage here would look a lot different. What about making a redirect to Squirrel (disambiguation)? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Disambig Page - for people looking for Squirrel-related activities, or people looking for Scientology. As it is at the moment, it's not an encyclopaedia article, and there isn't sufficient notability alone for either of its uses, to be a standalone article. -Toon⁰⁵ 16:08, 29 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.