Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error


 * 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Error

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost entirely unsourced, about several unrelated topics: Additionally, Error (disambiguation) should be moved over this title because there is likely no primary topic. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The first part of the Human behavior section could be part of one or more standalone articles about mistakes. (A move from Mistake may be required.) However, it is almost completely unreferenced and may consist of original research.
 * 2) The last subsection of Human behavior contains no content and instead directs the reader to Medical error.
 * 3) The first part of the Science and engineering section is already covered at Observational error and two related topics.
 * 4) The second part of Science and engineering should have a standalone article at Design error.
 * 5) The last paragraph of Science and engineering and the entirety of the Numerical analysis section are already covered at Approximation error.
 * 6) The Cybernetics section does not explain what the term means in cybernetics.
 * 7) The Biology section is a duplicate of Mutation. Other types of error not mentioned in the article also exist, such as chromosomal abnormalities.
 * 8) The Philately section is a duplicate of Errors, freaks, and oddities.
 * 9) The Law section needs to be merged into the standalone article, Error (law).
 * 10) The Stock market section is a duplicate of Fat-finger error.
 * 11) The Governmental policy section could have a standalone article or be merged with Intelligence cycle management, if it could be properly sourced.
 * 12) The Numismatics section is covered at Mint-made error.
 * Keep. It's not the best of articles, but it is the primary topic. Bands, albums, songs and fictional characters are not. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. An orientation survey article is needed for a broad topic like this. From here the reader should be able to access the more specialized discussion articles, which would obviously have the cites lacking here. Don't take away the umbrella article. Why should I have to dance between the raindrops to get an idea of what 'wet' means? Shenme (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Error has meaning in a lot of different fields, and describing that in a single article is better than having a disambiguation page in place at the base title. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a second curious nomination, although not poor enough to warrant a speedy close I fancy. BTW, per above, broad concept applies. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 12:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. The literature is so vast you should be able to find something to add. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (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.