Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensioner

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was FAILED TO REACH CONSENSUS.

[edit] Pensioner

Dicdef - the article even admits it. Cutler June 30, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

• Sigh. The article includes a reference to one of the sources used to write it, which happened to be a dictionary. Shock horror. Penfold June 30, 2005 12:16 (UTC)
• It doesn't even have the sense of pensioner that nearly all the articles linking to it mean. (only Abraham de la Pryme uses it like that). Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)
• I've added some info about what it actually does mean. Still stubby, but worth keeping. Proto t c 30 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)
• Wiktionary - It needs Cleanup on the way, but it's more appropriate for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. --Daedalus-Prime 30 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well done Proto. I think that pensioners are a notable enough concept to warrant expansion especially distinction between old age pensioners and self-funded retirees. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Keep Weak It rests on the fringe between dictdef and a genuine article. It needs expansion to move my Keep Weak to a general Keep. A suggestion would be to relate the article to other retirement articles. Retirement-related articles will probably get more popular as American and UK baby boomers start to retire, and this is an appropriate stub article until then. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 22:29 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.