- 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 delete. There seems to be no reason to redirect this page to only one of the several pages that use the term fully qualified, and creating a dab page in this case makes no sense. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully qualified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DICTDEF; WP:SYNT. I am fully qualified to nominate it for deletion, should I be mentioned in the article as well? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to fully qualified name which seems to be the same topic. Warden (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to fully qualified name. —Ruud 16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not too sure that such a general phrase should redirect to such an esoteric technical article. Would this really be the most likely article that general readers would be looking for under the title "fully qualified"? My immediate reaction to seeing the title was that that this must be about accountancy, in which field, in the UK, job adverts typically specify whether applicants should be fully or partially qualified. Surely it would be better to delete this so that anyone looking for this phrase will be presented with search results rather than be redirected to one specific use of the phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation page? —Ruud 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete—redundant to fully qualified name and its cousins. not necessary as a dab page, because all those fully qualified * pages are not actually distinct uses of the single search term "fully qualified".— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect because redirects are cheap, and outright deletion could impact on navigation, but redirection is necessary here as the article at present looks pretty redundant to Fully qualified name. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and convert into a disambiguation page - The article links to variations of "fully qualified". Second choice is redirect. →Στc. 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and convert into a disambiguation page, even though doing so is not strictly in accordance with WP:PTM. It's almost a dab page anyway. To avoid confusion it should start with "In computer science..."; other uses (accountancy was mentioned above) can be added later if deemed appropriate. Failing that, delete rather than redirect to just one of the possible articles, none of which is the primary topic. —SMALLJIM 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is inappropriate per WP:PTM—partial title matches. Wikipedia doesn't usually have dabs for adjectives. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I indicated, and despite which I think a dab page would be the best way to help our readers. —SMALLJIM 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is pretty much a dictionary definition. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 1 November 2011 (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.