Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equivalence

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. There is clear agreement that this DAB serves a useful purpose, well in excess of a DICDEF violation and within the wit of mankind to repair. The clean-up tag as regards DAB/Primary article is present and justified, but is not cause for deletion. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence (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)

Irredeemable kluge, a morphadite mix of disambiguation and dictionary definition. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but improve. This is definitely a bit of a mess in some ways, but it's by no means irredeemable. Until someone writes that broad-concept article, a dab page here seems pretty appropriate. I'll note however, that Equivalent redirects here, and I wonder if it should be its own (dab) page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. A broad-concept article of the sort mentioned by Deacon Vorbis above could definitely be written and the disambiguation page given here does serve readers. The nomination statement lacks a policy-based argument for deletion. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination doesn't mention any disadvantages from keeping and doesn't mention any advantages from deleting. Hyacinth (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve/tag for improvement. Not sure what the policy based rationale for deletion is given by the nominator. Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clean up, not delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 27 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.