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 Change to a DAB page and KEEP which has been done. Ryanjunk 14:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

Context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is mostly definitions of the term as used in various areas. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ideogram 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Semantics I guess... what's in context right now doesn't really seem like an encyclopedia article. --W.marsh 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually a dab page might be better, per below conversation. --W.marsh 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If we delete it, it'll have to redirect to somewhere, or be turned into a disambig of some sort (note the two see alsos at the top of the page). It's a highly-linked to page, and as a common word, we need to have something there. enochlau (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with making it a redirect. The content of the page is what's non-encyclopedic. And no one should be linking context, that's dumb. All those links should be removed. Thank God for AWB. --Ideogram 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turn into diambig. That is my preferred option actually. If we redirected to Semantics, it would be strange to have links to ConTeXt and ConTEXT at the top. Alternatively, I think the ((wi)) tag is appropriate. enochlau (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links at the top are the only part that belong in the disambig. All the rest of the article needs to be deleted, and any links to context that relates to that content need to be removed. Do you agree? --Ideogram 09:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one more can be salvaged for the diambig: Archeological context. Otherwise, I more or less agree with you that this stuff belong on Wiktionary - so before deletion, someone should have a look and transfer over anything that isn't covered in the dictionary. enochlau (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. I've rewritten the dab page to better conform with WP:DAB. Refer to text for a similarly difficult topic name to disambiguate. IMO this Afd should now be closed and Context listed on WP:DPL for further refinement. John Vandenberg 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, keep what we have now. enochlau (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep who is going to delete all those links to this disambiguation page? --Context2 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user is a user with no other edits that has a suspiciously similar username to the article's title... hmmmm enochlau (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.