Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pole (object)

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 merge to Pole. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pole (object)

Two reasons for nomination. "Not a Dictionary" is the main one. The second is that the page did contain text that was proposed for merge into two other articles. I have performed the merge and turned it into a disambig page, but I keep coming back to the "Not a dictionary" reason. Thus the seciond is a subset of the first Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I really should write more clearly. What I mean is that a "pole" as an object, is something that requires a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedic definition. As an article here it is not important. As a disambig page it is not important either because wikilinks to Pole (object) are, to me, not encyclopaedic links, so should not really exist either, though links to a particular kind of pole, such as a barber's pole make perfect sense because they are enclyclopaedic. Lack of this disambig page ought therefore to lead to better articles since they will, one hopes, link to the correct places. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and it does nothing that can't be done at the pole disambiguation page Ydam 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. The pre-disambiguation version was not that bad. Disambiguation pages are not "dictionary definitions." The links now there should be retained. The Dutch page seems better. Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree wholeheartedly that the pre-disambig version was not bad it was pretty much a duplicate of the two pages it was suggested for merge into, and was by no means expansive enough to be what it purported to be - a set fo definitions of poles which are objects. After the merge it became a page which is either incomplete and needs strengthening with everything one couold possibly disambiguate a pole to be, or is a duplicate of Pole, which I should doubtless have found before nominating it. There is thus an argument for turning it into a redirect page instead of deleting it. It is a very week disambig page as it stands. I was frankly unsure which course to take, hence the nomination whcih will give correct guidance. Fiddle Faddle 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to pole, then; that's already a disambiguation page, and a page like pole (object) suggests it's already disambiguated. Smerdis of Tlön 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Merge to the disambig page, then redirect - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:08, 12 June 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.