Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Report


 * 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 was keep. As a WP:BCA per the discussion. Merging the disambiguation page's contents here would be a discussion for the article talk pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Report

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a classic case of WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Article's references are 1.) to a dictionary, and 2.) to an unreliable source on the word. I can see nothing particularly special about this word to justify us having an article on it or even a redirect from it to some other (probably equally vague) word. KDS4444 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Move report (disambiguation) to this title and partially merge. Disambiguate - Convert to a [This is] basically [already] serving as a disambiguation page [of sorts]. [Moving report (disambiguation) to this title after merging some of the content that currently resides at report with it (taking WP:D and MOS:D into account in regard to what should be merged) is the best option. The history of what resides here should be preserved at report (disambiguation) which would become a redirect.] — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would type simply "report" if they are looking for a annual report, credit report or any of the other partial title matches listed there, so I don't see anything to disambiguate between. To my eyes, it looks like a textbook example of a broad-concept article. Uanfala (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Report (disambiguation) exists. If report is freed up, it should be moved there, as "(disambiguation)" becomes unnecessary (WP:DABNAME). I've clarified my !vote above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , per my previous comment, in my opinion there isn't anything to merge into the dab as it's a typical broad-concept article. Uanfala (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as a typical a WP:BCA. The fact that at present its two references are word definitions has to do with what happened to be the current content of the article, and that is a different matter from the general notability of the topic. Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep yes it's a broad concept article with many senses. I don't think the current article is in such sad shape as the tags suggest. Clearly a notable topic. Is it a dictionary definition? I think it's a topic that can be considered to be encyclopedic -- with many angles -- so I think it belongs. Plus there are over 600 readers a day suggesting it's serving a purpose.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uanfala. JackHoang (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – A broad-concept topic that comfortably passes WP:GNG:, , , , , , , , , , etc. North America1000 03:02, 10 September 2016 (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.