Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discontinuation

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Discontinuation}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discontinuation Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Discontinuation}})

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)

• 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 {{u|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)
• Addit: I support deleting this article and retaining some of the content in a separate article (Medication discontinuation - draft)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• @{{u|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)
• @{{u|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)

: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 to|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)

:*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)

::* Retaining attribution can be done at time of cut & paste, by writing whatever might be needed into the edit summary. (Incidentally, not all edits across Wikipedia are attributed to any identifiable author; it's easy to find edits made by bots or random IP-addresses). -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

::** No, we require, at a minimum, a link back to the original page. Please see the guideline WP:COPYWITHIN. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

: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)

• delete this is not a coherent topic. We don't for example have an article on "initiation" for starting a treatment. This is just indiscriminate and we don't do that in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• delete - discontinuation is just a generic word meaning 'stopping doing something', nothing more specific than that. This is Wiktionary territory, at best. It there are issues with the discontinuation of a particular medical treatment, they should be addressed in a specific manner on the page relating to that treatment, not as a separate topic. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not NEO ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation page. {{u|Tom (LT)}}'s approach works best, especially since articles like Withdrawal syndrome (redirected from Discontinuation syndrome) and Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome show that medication discontinuation is a significant topic. Once User:Tom (LT)/Medication discontinuation moves into mainspace, this article should disambiguate between Medication discontinuation and End-of-life (product). Newslinger (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Medication discontinuation after moving relevant content to the new article. I've added a redirect notice to End-of-life (product) on User:Tom (LT)/Medication discontinuation. Newslinger (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete should be moved to Wiktionary. Waddie96 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.