Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searching

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 of the debate was keep the disambiguation page version. howcheng {chat} 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching

• Delete. Already in wiktionary. Maybe turn into a disambiguation page. --Anthony Ivanoff 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• cery hard to see how this could ever be more than a dictdef. There is a song of this title (by Clan of Xymox, IIRC, or maybe Pieter Nooten solo), but it certainly wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. Delete. Grutness...wha?
• Delete - Not enough here to get traction for its own encyclopedia article. Endomion 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Again, already in Wiktionary, endlessly moved from stub category to stub category. At best a disambiguation page alone should remain. Emersoni 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Physical searching using eyes, using touch; searching reference materials; searching the web; etc. --Quarl 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it should be possible to write a general article on searching. If not turn this into a disambig. - SimonP 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have said, it doesn't seem like it can be much more than a simple definition. Possibly create a disambiguation page at "Search." Imaginaryoctopus 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, already more encyclopedic than wiktionary would accept. Can be expanded to discuss search techniques in air-sea rescue etc. Kappa 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambig. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambig. (Search should be the disambig though, with searching redirecting to it, per general style guidelines maybe?) --Fangz 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• That depends. Turning this article into a disambiguation is listed under both "keep" and "delete" . I think doing so is the best solution and my vote goes to whichever option it turns out to be. I'm guessing it is "delete" since that option came first but we will see.

Martin-C 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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.