Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

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

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

This article is an extended dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, combined with trivia about how people resign for reasons, how people resign from even resign from high-level positions (which we had no reason to doubt to begin with), and how (this is still dictionary-level coverage) there are a couple of other words for it depending on the circumstances. It also includes a few assorted examples of people resigning and random rules that may apply to resignation from some positions, with no unifying feature that tells us about resignation, as though it were an encyclopedic topic to begin with. Largoplazo (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:SAND and WP:COFFEE. 193.210.226.226 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address any of the rationale I gave for deleting it. Notability is a requirement, not the only requirement. Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:DICDEF as it discusses resignation as a concept and discusses notable resignations.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nothing like a dictionary definition – see WP:DICDEF which explains the difference. It's a fairly broad concept and so it difficult to write about but it's certainly notable – for example, here's a book devoted to the topic: Law Relating to Resignation and VRS. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fundamental concept. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. Is plainly more than a dictionary definition. Ipse dixit won't cut it. More wasted editor time responding to this ~~misbegotten~~ ill-advised effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE has nothing to do with the reasons I gave for deleting the article. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo Yes, it does. No compliance with WP:Before. Deletion is a last resort, not the first order of business. I suggest you reread it and apply it in the future. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't condescend. If you want to point to a specific one of the sixteen different pointers given in WP:BEFORE, please tell me what you think I overlooked, instead of superciliously throwing a blanket WP:BEFORE at me, as though this were my first rodeo and I'd never even conceived of looking at it. I've been here a long time, I've pointed other people to WP:BEFORE (like when they based a judgement of non-notability solely on sourcing in the article), I nominated this in good faith thinking I'd given it due consideration, and I'd appreciate it if you'd talk to me in that light. Or would you like me to throw WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at you for declaring my nomination "misbegotten"? Largoplazo (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section C. Improvability; alternatives to deletion. Please reconsider your approach. Your good faith has nothing to do with the inquiry. In fact, i WP:AGF, which is why I suggest you examine your conscience and modus operandi. If I thought you were beyond repair, I would have said nothing. We will have to agree to disagree.

Please understand, I was not impugning your integrity. Reasonable minds may differ, and good faith mistakes happen. We are all volunteers here, so I apologize if I came on too strong.

But I am firm in my conviction that this article can and should be salvaged, not deleted. There are thousands of articles on this subject at Google Scholar and HighBeam Research. That is why they have the Find Sources section at the top on this AFD nomination. It's not there as a hat rack. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 16 October 2018 (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.