"If the information isn't encyclopedic, the encyclopedia doesn't need it" sounds nice, is however not what de facto have argued with regard to the disambiguation page. Instead you've argued , that if the information is not located in the target article it can't be "encyclopedic". I find this location based approach to "encyclopedic nature" of information rather odd. As far as the dictionary argument is concerned, improving the navigation for common slang term doesn't turn the affected disambiguation pages into an dictionary entry. As far as "arguments made and won or lost" is concerned, you'd need to be more specific. What exact argument in what discussion? And what consensus by who?