Deletion of Australian and New Zealand punting glossary

Comment: per #DICT - I think a bunch of terms and their definitions is no different than having a page for each of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Fails  but is not in itself a bad article and would be a valuable contribution to that resource
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to  here is a complete misunderstanding of what it says and means. Agree with Fuhghettaboutit that it needs sourcing (and that nominator is trying to push a "test case"), and would go further that the entries need to be more explanatory to have sufficient encyclopedic value, but those are not issued raised by this AfD.  Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries.  The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty basis is to attack all articles that ''contain'' glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack  as invalid. If it weren't for the fact that the article has some problems unrelated to  this would be a "strong keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT||WP:SUMMARY||WP:DICT)