Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 (revert to disambiguation page). (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Importance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as per WP:NOTDICT  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:NOTDICT. [I don't know anything about AfD so will not contribute to subsequent discussion.] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambiguation page and lock it in that status. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Importance&oldid=672199163 . This is just a DICDEF as it stands, and to the extent there's an article to be had, the disambig page will have links to Social status and notability. SnowFire (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Revert to disambiguation page. While the topic article only gives a dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT is not a basis for deletion in this instance. To use as an example, let's take an article named Subsequent. (After coming up with this as an example, I found out that it exists as a cross-project redirect. Ignore that.) What would an article about the word "subsequent" be about? To my knowledge, there is no real encyclopedic information that can be associated with the term, so it doesn't warrant an entry in Wikipedia. However, it is a word that does indeed exist, so it should be an entry in Wiktionary instead. Now, for importance. The term importance is actually important, in the sense that there are encyclopedic topics that are known as "importance". These could be, but not limited to, the philosophy of importance and/or value, relative importance, social importance, etc. SnowFire points out that a disambiguation page used to exist here, which is what should be restored in this case. Utopes (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambiguation page per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambiguation page - given the how central the concept of notability is to Wikipedia (which is related to importance) makes sense to return to the disambiguation page per SnowFire. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Importance_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=924304363"