Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manual override

Manual override

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

Article consists of a one-sentence definition, followed by three brief, apparently arbitrary "examples." A WP:DICTDEF prod was removed with the edit summary "seems to be a discussion, not merely dicdef"; personally, I think "You can manually override printer errors sometimes, and they manually override stuff on Star Trek, and someone manually overrides something in this one movie" (paraphrased) is a pretty weak discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article consists of two things: WP:DICTDEF, and examples. A list of examples of manual override would be unmanageable. Unencyclopedic. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) - I agree with the 'keep' arguments below. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable subject. Ripe for expansion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be expanded to a general set of examples of using a manual override, and give explanations of different override mechanisms. This would require someone more familiar than I with the subject to really make it shine, though. Lithorien (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable article, though it needs expansion. This is a fairly general concept in practice. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article with the above Keepers. How could we not have an article on such a common concept? Dream Focus 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a widely used term with suitable examples and references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]