Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field name

Dicdef, doesn't look expandable. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  22:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to record.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't agree with a redirect at all, and therefore not with a merge. The reason is that "field name" is at least as common in botany and ornithology and entymology for living critters, and the last thing I expected to find, when I clicked on the link, was a definition for computer science. Geogre 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: what about a disambig page?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly so, yes. I suppose the disambiguation would be to the various fields, so to speak. Geogre 12:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to record, on its own it can never be more than a stub. ··gracefool |&#9786; 10:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Along with Geogre, I expected to find something different to computer science, only my expectation was for something on field names in the UK: every single field (bit of land with a fence around it) has a name and some of them are quite fascinating how they came about them. Turn into disambig page is my vote. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 15:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)