Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal


 * 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 redirect to Tribe. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tribal
del We don't have articles for adjectives. `'mikkanarxi 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a valid disambig page. Please see WP:MOSDAB --NMChico24 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't see anything wrong with this disambig page. Explain?-- aviper2k7 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Merge, after an explanation.
 * comment this is not a valid disambig case: Tribal chief is not called "tribal", The same for American Tribal Style Belly Dance etc. `'mikkanarxi 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bad_%28disambiguation%29 -- wtfunkymonkey 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge The question is not whether any particular thing is called such in a disambig, but whether there's any possibility of it, so that people may wish to look for it. In other words, is it useful index-wise?  I believe there's some potential for that here.  However, in this case, I suggest it be merged Tribe (disambiguation) as that page and this one seem redundant.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect: the problem with the disambig page is that it dabs to articles that all have Tribal as part, but not all of the article name. According to WP:D, these articles shouldn't be on the dab page at all. (We don't, for example, disambiguate Lost to Lost cause.) Suggest redirect to either Tribalism or Tribe. theProject 03:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Is the word "Tribal" used as a valid slang or shorthand for the terms on this disambig page? Would anyone say "This is a tribal" and mean all of the things on this page?  If so, I would vote "keep".  If not, then it is just a common word, and there is no reason for anyone to look for an article named "Tribal" and thus, the disambig page is useless, and I thus vote delete.  If anyone can provide evidence that this deserves to be here for the reasons I cite above, I would be willing to change my vote.  --Jayron 32  04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribalism per theProject - Che Nuevara  06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe (disambiguation). Westenra 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: redirecting to Tribe/dab would be effectively redirecting to Tribe, because the word "tribal" is not relevant to any the other entries on Tribe/dab other than Tribe. - Che Nuevara  07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe, as the other links should not be on the dab page (per TheProject). 0L1   Talk   Contribs  11:18 3/12/2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe. Ter e nce Ong 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Mikkalai; possibly Merge content with Tribe or Tribalism per theProject. Endless blue 15:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe; no need to have an article about an adjective TSO1D 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe. Unnecessary disambiguation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tribe. Redirecting would most likely suffice better than deleting outright or merging information.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Looking for the style of music, it would make sense to search for "tribal". However, it would make no sense to find tribal house at tribe. Articles like "tribe" shouldn't get cluttered up with stuff that ought to be on a disambiguation page. The stuff that's currently at "tribal" will show up at "tribe" and then have to be moved out to tribe disambiguation. We can save all that time by keeping as is. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:54, 8 December 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.