"A dipole" strongly implies a single thing having two poles. A molecule, like for example HCl, is a single thing. It consists of two atoms sharing a privileged spatial relationship, that stay close to one another (and much closer than to any other atom) for as long as the molecule exists. Because the shared electrons holding them together are unevenly distributed, the molecule has a "plus" and a "minus" side and is called a dipole.
It is a common mistake to see an ionic compound like NaCl and imagine it also contains some sort of fundamental entity, a distinct "molecule" consisting of a single Na and Cl atom and analogous to the real HCl molecule but held together by an ionic rather than covalent bond. The only place you'd see something like this would be in the gas phase, where ion pairs occur in rapid equilibrium with dimers (Na2Cl2) and larger clusters. For the time they exist under conditions you'll probably never encounter, these ion pair could be considered molecules and they are obviously highly polar, so yes, they would be dipoles.
Under ambient conditions though, ionic compounds are usually solids, in which each positive ion is surrounded by many more negative ions than the one (in the case of NaCl) it's "supposed" to bond with according to its empirical formula. Moreover, these opposite charges are, by defintion, symmetrically distributed around the ion (if they weren't, the lattice wouldn't be in equilibrium and would shift until it was). Each individual ion in the bulk of an ionic solid is in a perfectly apolar environment, so it doesn't make sense to talk about dipoles here.
The same logic holds for molten or dissolved salts, just that the ions move about randomly in stead of being stuck in a lattice; they're still doing that as individual ions, not ion pairs, so again there is no single thing to be called "a dipole".