Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMBO


 * 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. Following edits, the deletion rationale no longer applies.  Sandstein  21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

LMBO

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unnecessary disambiguation page. ... disco spinster   talk  04:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a search on-wiki reveals several other meanings of the term "LMBO", which I just added. Duckmather (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Question "Unnecessary" in what way? That's a surprisingly vague deletion rationale which doesn't give much context for discussion. I don't see why it's any less "necessary" than any other disambiguation page with five alternatives on it. Granted, none of them have their subjects linked, but all of them reference something that's mentioned at the destination pages, and in most cases to which they specifically pertain. Largoplazo (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unnecessary in that none of the articles linked are closely associated with "LMBO". (See WP:DABACRONYM.) Who is going to search for this initialism trying to get to one of these articles? ... disco spinster   talk  16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: multiple entries pass WP:DABMENTION, the only questionable line being the buy-out initialism which appears in several sources but not on-wiki. There seems to be no primary topic.  Certes (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the buy-out initialism as the most solid entry: that's the only one where the topic is clearly not obscure, the term widely used (could easily be the primary topic, already is on frwiki), and the linked article/s highly relevant to the topic (rather that simply the location for a passing mention). – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very different page than the one that was speedy deleted before this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per additions made during this discussion. Is now a functional DAB page. Star   Mississippi  15:44, 21 February 2022 (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.