Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stool Pigeon

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 of the debate was REDIRECT. Banez 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stool Pigeon[edit]

A dicdef with just enough etymology to pose as an article --Ruby 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. We have an article on Homing_Pigeon also. Monkeyman 02:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A homing pigeon is an animal. A stool pigeon is a euphemism. --Ruby 02:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real abuse of pigeons. Kappa 02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Passenger pigeons already documents the abuse. --Ruby 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary article. --Jay(Reply) 04:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noteworthy, but not enough for its own article. Merge information into passenger pigeon to note that this is where the term came from (assuming info can be verified), then redirect to passenger pigeon. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki If dictionary, please dump the content onto wiktionary and replace the wikipedia page with {{dict}} -- Zondor 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Informant. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Informant. All salvageable content has been merged to that article. dbtfz ^talk 16:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good little stub with encyclopedic content. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Informant I added a citation for the etymology, but I'm just not sure there is enough here. Danaman5 09:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Informant and Transwiki if need be. UncleFloyd 03:28, 20 February 2006 (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.