Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich

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. —Korath (Talk) 05:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rich

• Delete - dictionary definition Treborbassett 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a disambiguation page, not a dictionary definition. --iMb~Mw 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, disambig page. Disambiguation pages are very helpful! :D Tygar 18:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although we probably only need the wealthy and Richard links, not the multiple definitions of rich. DaveTheRed 19:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Actually this is a dicdef, it only disambigs between several possible applications of the word. As such, I'd say transwiki except that Wiktionary already has it, so Delete. Radiant! 20:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I maintain this is a dictionary definition. If someone comes across the word 'rich' and wonders what it means, presumably they are in need of a dictionary. If someone wants to look up 'wealth' in Wikipedia, they will search for 'wealth' not 'rich'. All the other meanings of 'rich', except perhaps "Richard", here are straightforward dictionary definitions. In the case of "Richard" this page, if kept, should simply be a redirect to that page. Furthermore, "richness" redirects to this page - this seems, if anything, the wrong way round to me. At any rate, it seems strange to have even a disambiguation page for this word. Treborbassett 20:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. I apologise for the inconsistency of inverted commas in the above! Treborbassett 20:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is disambiguating between the concept rich and the name Richard at least. Thue | talk 20:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment rich isn't the name of a concept; richness is, but the richness article redirects here. That seems wrong to me. Treborbassett 20:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So replace rich with wealth in my vote above. My vote stands. Thue | talk 23:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's inherent in the nature of disambiguation that it be between encyclopaedia articles that (would) have the same (common) name. There's no ambiguity when the names are different, such as "wealth" and "Richard" are. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
      • I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they want to read about "richness" or "wealth", and I can imagine somebody searching for "rich" when they are want "Richard". Keeping the page as a disambiguation page on that ground makes sense to me. Thue | talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page could probably be expanded and I'm against removing disambiguation pages in general. Carbonite 22:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have nothing against disambiguation pages, but this is barely one. It offers a link to 'wealth' and 'Richard' (and nothing else - it defines some other uses). Who would enter 'rich' to look up 'wealth'? It seems strange to have an adjective (in all cases except Richard) as the title for an article, disambiguation page or otherwise. Treborbassett 22:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For a page to be a disambiguation page, there have to be more than one encyclopaedia article that could conceivably be at the title. There aren't any encyclopaedia articles by this title. The actual encyclopaedia articles are all under the name Richard, which is itself a disambiguation page, and which also mentions "Rich". All that this page is actually doing is disambiguating between a dictionary entry and a redirect to Richard. Redirect to the Richard disambiguation page and link to Wiktionary:Rich and Wiktionary:Richard from there. (I've done the latter two steps .) Uncle G 22:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig page. Megan1967 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. While I agree it seems to be a dicdef disguised as a disambig (as opposed to a real disambig), there is an awful lot that links there. I was tempted to change Richness so that it redirects to Wealth instead of to Rich, but then it occurred to me that for me at least "richness" is more likely to refer to the creaminess and heaviness of foods like egg nog than it is to be a synonym for wealth. But I don't see that richness in that sense is worthy of an encyclopedia article. As for the name, first names belong on Wiktionary, not here. --Angr 12:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 13:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as valid disambiguation for Richard versus wealthy. The other, dicdef entries can probably go, but they don't seem to be acutely harmful. I've added a link to rich in Wiktionary. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:44, 13 Mar 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.