Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field name

Dicdef, doesn't look expandable. —siro χ o 22:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to record. — Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't agree with a redirect at all, and therefore not with a merge. The reason is that "field name" is at least as common in botany and ornithology and entymology for living critters, and the last thing I expected to find, when I clicked on the link, was a definition for computer science. Geogre 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: what about a disambig page? — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly so, yes. I suppose the disambiguation would be to the various fields, so to speak. Geogre 12:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to record, on its own it can never be more than a stub. ··gracefool |☺ 10:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Along with Geogre, I expected to find something different to computer science, only my expectation was for something on field names in the UK: every single field (bit of land with a fence around it) has a name and some of them are quite fascinating how they came about them. Turn into disambig page is my vote. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)