Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disengagement originator


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Disengagement originator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dicdef, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like it would be better in a glossary article, but I can't see a relevant one (List of telephony terminology is currently restricted to terms with an article, so that wouldn't work). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOT does not apply here as encyclopedic treatment of this topic is possible and is even mildly on display in this stub. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that? I see no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The proof is self-evident as the content of this stub gives more context and dimension than a dictionary definition. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's notable because the article says it's notable. By that logic, I could write an article about my own ass, and you'd say "keep, the article says it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we changing the subject from dictdef to ass? ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that your argument makes no sense. "Giving context" is not the same thing as "asserting notability". How is this a notable topic? It exists, but existence doesn't equal notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be technical but your nomination doesn't include a notability complaint. There's nothing that restricts you from throwing that into the mix now but my experience is that when AfD discussion start wandering like this we just start rehashing tired deletionist/inclusionist arguments. This takes us away from the mission to improve the encyclopedia and makes everyone unhappy. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I've added two sources as per the original complaint. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2017 (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.