Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibs (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs

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

Article is just a dictionary definition, with no evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —me_and 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Meatsgains (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to see how this could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. JMWt (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Curro2 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY, nor should it try to be because it's a tough job as this entry shows. The OED would show several other definitions for this word.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a dicdef now, but it used to be much longer than it currently is – see this diff from about ten months ago in which a whole lot of country-by-country information was removed. It wasn't a well written page, and the article was very much lacking in sources – but it at least shows that the article can be more than a simple dicdef, and can branch into a slightly wider description of dibs as a social phenomenon. It just needs the effort to be put into it, and a Google search indicates that references which treat the subject in a serious way aren't too hard to find. I might give it a try if I have a dull moment over the coming days. At the very least don't WP:SALT the article if it reaches a deletion consensus on DICDEF grounds. Aspirex (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the old version of the article, the lede looks like unverifiable OR, and the rest is entirely dictionary content, just including a translation dictionary as well as definitions and etymology. Edited to add: See also Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Not size – a full-size dictionary entry can easily be as long as the old article, including translations, illustrative quotes, etc. —me_and 11:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the failings of the old version, but it was specific content such as the dibsing of carparking spaces which caught my attention as potential encyclopedic content. Likewise there is a parallel to calling shotgun which can be explored to bring the article beyond a dicdef. Aspirex (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2016 (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.