Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep the disambiguation page. Sjakkalle 09:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dictdef. It may be in the 1911 britannica, but it's still a classic dictdef. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:13, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing in this rticle that isn't already mentioned in the wiktionary article. -- Mariocki TALK 02:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Given I only knew the taxation meaning, I would have found this useful if I'd come across the word in another context and was looking for clarification. If W~padeia and w~tionary were remote linked, so that dict-defs automatically came up, I'd support delete, but I would argue that this may be a useful disambiguation. No vote --Simon Cursitor 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vote is "delete", then, since MediaWiki:Noarticletext points to searching Wiktionary for an article and Wiktionary:MediaWiki:Noarticletext points to searching Wikipedia for an article. Uncle G 16:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
- Keep, encyclopedic. If Britannica thought there was potential to expand, who are we to disagree? Kappa 13:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Taxing. Klonimus 14:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I turned this into a disambiguation page and merged the relevant information into the related articles. Keep.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Works well as a kind of dab. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. -- BD2412 talk 18:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- Keep the disambig. --Carnildo 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would just like to point out that WP:DAB states: The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. There is no point in adding one-line dictionary definitions to such a page.. If this is no longer the community consensus, should the policy be revised? --Tabor 22:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is talking about one-line dictionary definitions that don't also take you to a page where the topic in discussed in more encylopedic detail. Kappa 23:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This situation is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style: that proposed style guide specifies that such links should be to anchor points where the topic is mentioned. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not impressed by the disambiguation, because a person looking for this information would do better to go to a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:26, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
- This situation is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style: that proposed style guide specifies that such links should be to anchor points where the topic is mentioned. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is talking about one-line dictionary definitions that don't also take you to a page where the topic in discussed in more encylopedic detail. Kappa 23:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Britannica is not a good measure of a good encyclopedia--nixie 06:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And Larry Sanger accuses us of being anti-élitist? →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Keep: I think it works fine as a disambig. --Durin 02:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.