Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recipient

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. BJ^Talk 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recipient

Pointless disambiguation page, as there appears to be no article (nor, as far as I'm aware, any possible topic for an article) that can be referred to as just "recipient" without specifying what is being received. This page could conceivably be infinitely long, listing anything that it is technically possible to bestow upon a person or life form (using the same format as the latest addition: "Recipient, an animal or person who receives an embryo transplant".) It's a completely generic concept, inherently ambiguous. Propaniac (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can never be more than a dicdef, worse as it gets expanded! Bob (QaBob) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could go on forever. Ambiguous, unnecessary. Scotty dude _review 19:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a word, WP is not a dictionary. Redddogg (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless dab that points to nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who covers all the reasons. --Lockley (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as a diambiguation page that only disambiguates between shades of meaning for a dictionary defintion -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (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.