Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoupling


 * 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. + move Decoupling (disambiguation) over it. slakr \ talk / 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Decoupling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redundant page. This is an illusion of an article about the concept of "decoupling". It is not, despite numerous possible refefences. In fact, it is just a collection of sections about the meaning of the term "decoupling" in numerous mutually unrelated areas, and the references are not about "decoupling" in general, but about respective specific areas. Basically, it is nothing but an overblown disambiguation page. Therefore I am suggesting to delete this page and move Decoupling (disambiguation) under this title. - Altenmann >t 08:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no concrete concept here around which an article can be built. It is better as a simple disambiguation page. bd2412  T 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's fundamental to an encyclopedia that each article should be about one topic. The word decoupling does not appear to be a notable subject itself (unlike most/all of the other articles in Category:English words).  As there are some referenced sections (incidentally, there were a whole load of uncited sections that I removed a year ago) it may be worth userfying the page and making the relevant wikiprojects aware in case there's any material they can use, but that shouldn't get in the way of deleting the page (and then moving the dab page over it).  Alternatively, redirect the page to the dab (and, if considered necessary, let the projects know that there's some referenced material in the redirect's page history). DexDor (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Decouple from Wikipedia per nom and move the dab page over. There's no need for two pages doing basically the same thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a legitimate WP:BROADCONCEPT here, although the article needs work. -- 101.119.14.254 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Convert to proper disambiguation page - which ultimately doesn't require deletion via admin intervention, and therefore doesn't need WP:AFD. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already a dab page. Look at the page history to see why the AFD is needed. DexDor (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as this is basically a more long-winded and less useful version of the DAB page. Then move the existing DAB page to this title.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC).
 * 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.