From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. A redirect to Medication discontinuation can be created once that article exists. Sandstein 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Word is not notable by itself. Article consists almost solely of original research. I think Wiktionary should be the one with pages that are purely dictionary definitions of words that are not the subject of focused, scholarly study.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Discontinuation is an increasingly important and notable concept that warrants its own article. It is an issue involving end of life discussions, risk vs. benefit, development of new evidence, changes in guidelines and more. I agree with NapoliRoma that it's better to have a single page such as Treatment discontinuation focused solely on medical issues rather than lumping the product one here too.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Delete - As the article is now (and has been for years), then most of the content is better suited for inclusion/merging into some relevant article(s) about medicine, though I have no idea what such relevant article(s) might be (I have no competencies within any medical field).
    As for non-medicine related uses of the word "Discontinuation", then: Wiktionary is the proper location.
    I agree with "Tom (LT)" that "Discontinuation" has general notability to it, but disagree that it's a notable concept, because it's not a concept, but rather (at most) is an action, which may sometimes (but not always) be taken as part of something systemic ("Planned obsolescence" being an example of something systemic).
    In short: I don't see "Discontinuation" as having any non-contextual importance (i.e. no significance in of its own), to any other extend than Wiktionary is its proper place. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 17:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ DexterPointy you make a good point that this article is excessively broad. Would you support retaining some of the content as I propose above? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Tom (LT) I support retaining the medicine related content here on Wikipedia, - but doing so by moving/merging it into already existing article(s), not by creating a new separate article for it. This "Discontinuation" article has been here since 2006, yet has utterly failed to evolve into a "juicy" article. I find it extremely unlikely that a subset of this article (the medicine content) can somehow garner editors interest, if it got spawned into a separate article.
        Saying: Let's not create yet-another orphan stub article, but instead rather add the content to an already existing article, i.e. put the content into an already existing valuable meaningful context, thereby adding the value to already existing article(s). -- DexterPointy ( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to DexterPointy that merge and delete is not possible for licensing reasons, we can do only either the one or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein: : I don't see how partial transferring of some content from one Wikipedia article to one or more Wikipedia articles can possibly become a licensing problem. I'm not suggesting that anything be transferred out of Wikipedia. Is it me or you who's missing something, and, more importantly, what?
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 01:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Our licence requires that all edits are attributed to their author. This is usually done via the history, which disappears if an article is deleted. That's why we can't merge and then delete content: the content would no longer be properly attributed. We can, however, merge and redirect. Sandstein 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 9 July 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. A redirect to Medication discontinuation can be created once that article exists. Sandstein 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Word is not notable by itself. Article consists almost solely of original research. I think Wiktionary should be the one with pages that are purely dictionary definitions of words that are not the subject of focused, scholarly study.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Discontinuation is an increasingly important and notable concept that warrants its own article. It is an issue involving end of life discussions, risk vs. benefit, development of new evidence, changes in guidelines and more. I agree with NapoliRoma that it's better to have a single page such as Treatment discontinuation focused solely on medical issues rather than lumping the product one here too.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Delete - As the article is now (and has been for years), then most of the content is better suited for inclusion/merging into some relevant article(s) about medicine, though I have no idea what such relevant article(s) might be (I have no competencies within any medical field).
    As for non-medicine related uses of the word "Discontinuation", then: Wiktionary is the proper location.
    I agree with "Tom (LT)" that "Discontinuation" has general notability to it, but disagree that it's a notable concept, because it's not a concept, but rather (at most) is an action, which may sometimes (but not always) be taken as part of something systemic ("Planned obsolescence" being an example of something systemic).
    In short: I don't see "Discontinuation" as having any non-contextual importance (i.e. no significance in of its own), to any other extend than Wiktionary is its proper place. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 17:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ DexterPointy you make a good point that this article is excessively broad. Would you support retaining some of the content as I propose above? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Tom (LT) I support retaining the medicine related content here on Wikipedia, - but doing so by moving/merging it into already existing article(s), not by creating a new separate article for it. This "Discontinuation" article has been here since 2006, yet has utterly failed to evolve into a "juicy" article. I find it extremely unlikely that a subset of this article (the medicine content) can somehow garner editors interest, if it got spawned into a separate article.
        Saying: Let's not create yet-another orphan stub article, but instead rather add the content to an already existing article, i.e. put the content into an already existing valuable meaningful context, thereby adding the value to already existing article(s). -- DexterPointy ( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to DexterPointy that merge and delete is not possible for licensing reasons, we can do only either the one or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein: : I don't see how partial transferring of some content from one Wikipedia article to one or more Wikipedia articles can possibly become a licensing problem. I'm not suggesting that anything be transferred out of Wikipedia. Is it me or you who's missing something, and, more importantly, what?
    -- DexterPointy ( talk) 01:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Our licence requires that all edits are attributed to their author. This is usually done via the history, which disappears if an article is deleted. That's why we can't merge and then delete content: the content would no longer be properly attributed. We can, however, merge and redirect. Sandstein 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 07:38, 9 July 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook