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 Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs[edit]

Dibs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism of an unnotable informal term. The whole thing is a load of original research as there are no in-text citations or anything to verify the information of the article. See also: WP:NEO. Tavix (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of the article is an international social custon of claiming posession of a common resource, and is not limited to one neologism. The word "dibs" for this practice in English has references back to the mid 19th century. See "The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English [1]". Its origins are discussed in "Verbatim: From the Bawdy to the Sublime (2001)" [2] and in numerous other scholarly references at Google book search.Deletion of an article is not necessary if sources exist to improve it. Edison (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Many more sources need to be found however. Although everyone knows what this is the article should be cited with reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a lot more than a dicdef and per above, sources can be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a dictionary definition until proven otherwise... usage guide and etymology is for a dictionary, trivia and example farms are not encyclopedic. That's all that's been shown to exist... we shouldn't keep articles on the wishful thinking that someone might prove it's encyclopedic someday. We would have to keep absolutely any article under that logic. --Rividian (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No, we would only keep article which have substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N, as this one does. Edison (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most nouns and slang terms in the english language have "coverage", as in a lot of uses, but it consists of nothing more than examples and definitions. Not everything is fit for an encyclopedia article, even if we're sure we've heard of it a lot. --Rividian (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (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.