Disownment : Could possibly be merged into a broader article.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies GNG.  This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical/encyclopedia articles.  A search for "disownment"+parental in Google Books brings up many sources such as this book .  According to this encyclopedia article on (parental) "Disownment" , there are legally recognised forms of (parental) disownment.  From there one can find, for example, this book chapter on the public process of disownment among the Tanala of Ikongo.  There are articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about parental or family disownment.  [The concept of "disownment" in Quakerism satisfies GNG in of itself. I am not sure whether this form of disownment, and parental disownment, are parts of a single topic, or whether they should be treated separately.] The article can be expanded with material that goes far beyond a dictionary definition.  James500 ( talk ) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing here that's usable; why not WP:TNT ?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ATD says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page".  That is clearly the case here.  James500 ( talk ) 23:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How do you feel about WP:DRAFTIFY ?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article should stay in the mainspace.  The article does not satisfy criteria 2 or 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY.  The article is not a mere definition.  Much of the content is now referenced, and much of the rest appears to be WP:BLUE that should be straightforward to reference.  James500 ( talk ) 23:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a strong, encyclopaedic subject with extensive RS to back it up, none of which show in the article.  I found extensive coverage for both LGBT+ and Quakers on gScholar, as well as plenty of WP:DEPTH and case study analysis.  I will try to pull my WP:THREE together within the next day or so, but this looks like a WP:DINC problem.  I would accept TNT as an AtD, but I'd rather see someone adopt the article into draftspace.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I see two viable AtD's here: either WP:DRAFTIFY the article or WP:TNT it and add sections on disownment to the existing articles on Quakerism and LGBT issues.  Any thoughts?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not an authority on the field, and came here for information.  This is a useful topic, so I think it should be kept.  Yugan Talovich ( talk ) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same here.  I believe this is an important topic that people should know about.  2607:9880:1628:20:65A4:8604:2232:262C ( talk ) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at WP:ITSIMPORTANT .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion, it would be helpful if the changes to the article since nomination were assessed.  It seems like this article has gone beyond a dictionary definition.  Right now, I don't see support for Deletion but let's keep this discussion open another few days.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and expand.  The concept dates back to the earliest legal systems, and is covered by many inheritance law textbooks.  The French language wiki has more about the relevant laws in France, Switzerland and Quebec, and the Japanese language wiki has useful information about the history and legal aspects in Japan.  Also pinging @ BD2412 : for his expertise here.  Owen× ☎ 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I am no expert on disownment, but the concept exists legally, and goes beyond disinheritance (which basically means cutting someone out of a will) towards complete severance of familial legal obligations.  Legally, disownment can also run both ways — a child can disown their parents through an effort to obtain legal emancipation.  There has to be a mechanism, however.  Standing up at Thanksgiving dinner and yelling "I disown you" may perform the function socially, but any legal sort of disownment would have to be accomplished through some kind of court proceeding.  I'm sure that more can be found on that.  BD2412 T 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the article hasn't yet covered Quintillian 's abdicatio or the laws trying to prevent disownment in Edo period Japan, I'm going to say that that this is a stub with scope for expansion.  Uncle G ( talk ) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above JM ( talk ) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep