Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dribnif

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 with prejudice against recreation before the heat death of the universe. Skomorokh 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dribnif

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

Unverified neologism. I42 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD, WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above, original research, and the fact that Wikipedia is not for ideas made up one day, which the term "Dribnif" seems to be. This is a new, short article with no sources given, and, based on my search on Google, no potential sources. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Made-up neologism probably only used only by the person who invented it and maybe his circle of friends and family members. Totally unjustified article. McMarcoP (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Francium12 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the term Dribnif you might as well stop allowing people to increase your knowledge base. What would you call a Dribnif if we had not told you the first term used to describe the subject?

Comment. Dear author of an unsigned comment (and therefore normally unworthy of a reply but I'm in a good mood), even if this made-up word was used by any relevant group of people, try to add it to a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. McMarcoP (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and even then, if it's a good dictionary, it will not be any more interested than we are in something made up one day; our sister project Wiktionary requires attestation by "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ...that's why I wrote "try" to add it to a dictionary. So at least he goes to annoy someone else! McMarcoP (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find persons that are honestly trying to increse your knowledge base annoying, then so be it. The term is real and honest and you and anyone else that ever drops an ice cube will be just have to pick it up and face your censorship. I won't annoy you anymore and I am sorry if that was the effect. Thanks for your consideration regardless.

Comment - Wikipedia's idea of "knowledge" is not just "something someone says is real and honest." Our fundamental principle is Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear 70.235.19.172, what is annoying is not the article itself: it just doesn't fit into Wikipedia, first of all because it is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary and then because it is not possible to prove its relevance. What is annoying is the fact that you come in all guns blazing, trying to use misplaced irony and sterile arguments to prevent the article from being deleted - and you do so anonymously. Good arguments would be sources (printed or - even better because easier to verify - online) that state that the word "Dribnif" (which I indeed find funny and would use but for the life of me I can't remember unless I read it less than 30 seconds before, but this is not the point) is commonly used and widely recognised. And this still wouldn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia but only in a dictionary. Sorry. McMarcoP (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO or WP:YOUREKIDDINGRIGHT, take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (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.