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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government (disambiguation)[edit]

Government (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is way too broad, and categories already cover this. The page would cover tens of thousands of pages. Again, much better covered by differential categories, not disambiguation Isingness (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the argument that a term is too broad for disambiguation doesnt make sense. If there is more than one term, then it needs disambiguating. The argument that there are too few different meanings is sometimes a valid reason for a delete, but usually it seems disambiguation pages are all-too-useful and therefore immune from this argument for deletion. The idea that categories covers the topic doesn't make sense, as people don't readily access through categories, they access different related topics through disambiguatio, and categories are more for oraganization. -Inowen (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD might make more sense if there were thousands of entries on the page, but I only see a few. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - "there are too many possible meanings of this word to have a disambiguation page" doesn't make sense and isn't a valid reason for deletion. Madg2011 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per Madg2011. Simply do not understand what deleting this would accomplish. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Government article and its hatnotes have been a disaster for a great while; there are enough terms to have a DAB page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 7 March 2018 (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.