Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manual override Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manual_override

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. — Jake Wartenberg 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manual override

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of a one-sentence definition, followed by three brief, apparently arbitrary "examples." A WP:DICTDEF prod was removed with the edit summary "seems to be a discussion, not merely dicdef"; personally, I think "You can manually override printer errors sometimes, and they manually override stuff on Star Trek, and someone manually overrides something in this one movie" (paraphrased) is a pretty weak discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article consists of two things: WP:DICTDEF, and examples. A list of examples of manual override would be unmanageable. Unencyclopedic. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) - I agree with the 'keep' arguments below. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable subject. Ripe for expansion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be expanded to a general set of examples of using a manual override, and give explanations of different override mechanisms. This would require someone more familiar than I with the subject to really make it shine, though. Lithorien (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable article, though it needs expansion. This is a fairly general concept in practice. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article with the above Keepers. How could we not have an article on such a common concept? Dream Focus 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a widely used term with suitable examples and references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator just tells us that he has found an imperfect stub and gives us no reason to delete this rather than improving it. There is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles that consist only of brief definitions (as this one was, plus three random and essentially worthless examples; it's now a better-written definition plus two random examples) are deleted all the time; it's a perfectly valid reason to delete. I disagree with the opposing arguments that because this is a common concept, there must be something encyclopedic to say about it, and surely eventually someone will actually create this encyclopedic content (by that logic, we should create stubs for every single word and phrase in common usage). I will be amazed if this article ever turns into something substantial and informative. Propaniac (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember all the new automatic transmissions coming out with Manual override options. -MBHiii (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fundamentally a dicdif with no potential to go beyond a dicdif. The only thing in there beyond a definition of the term was a random sample of places where manual overrides have appeared in fiction, which is not an encyclopedic topic. The only sources are to a technical definition, and to an article that happens to mention the subject... which is used, in the article, only to provide a more detailed definition. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potential for much beyond being a dicdef. Quantpole (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.