Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval land terms

 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 Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medieval land terms
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All of the definitions here have been merged elsewhere, and this title offers no redirect. So, delete. --Dmcdevit 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful explanation of terms in context - room for expansion in discussing the rise and decline of their use. -- BD2412 talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Keep quite useful--Melaen 22:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody said dictionary definitions aren't useful, just not encyclopedic. --Dmcdevit 22:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - think that a collection of terms explained in context to each other is more than a dicdef. DS1953 22:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this page all the time. There are many such "lists" on Wikipedia (even a new "best of lists" featured article category). The notion that every article must be like a traditional book-bound encyclopedia is not accurate. These are not dictdefs, just short summaries with links to main articles that contain fuller treatments. Stbalbach 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just that the article is useful and provides helpful context; the assemblage of all these terms in one place makes it encyclopedic.  But the article's title is perhaps not the most descriptive or likely to be searched on, and should be renamed. -EDM 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fine and useful summary.  I like it.  A redirect link for Medieval real estate terms should probably be created.  -- Un focused 22:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic. Also since it's been merged, it has to be kept. Kappa 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. For GFDL requirements, the old article's contribution history gets included in the parent article's history when information is merged.  We do not have to keep the merged article or even a redirect.  Also, no non-VFD pages link to this article except two which can easily be changed.  No vote; I would think this could be merged to a section in another article, but failing that, the consensus pushes me more toward Keep than I would have leaned.  Barno 18:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - The old article's contribution history does not get included in the parent's. Please read Merge again.  Especially note where it says "Merging should always leaves a redirect in place. Even if you think that's rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place anyway - it's generally established that superfluous redirects don't harm anything." -- Jonel 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting list. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this please its very useful Yuckfoo 23:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per BD2412 and WINP. Blackcats 10:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - very useful and just like many other lists Djnjwd 19:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep-- with a good summary up front the information would become more than just useful. WBardwin 05:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 .