Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting glossary
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
— User:SMcCandlish, 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DICT||WP:SUMMARY||WP:DICT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)