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]
Speedy Keep The nominator just tells us that he has found an imperfect stub and gives us no reason to delete this rather than improving it. There is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]