Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gib (video gaming)

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 redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Gib. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gib (video gaming)[edit]

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

The article is a rather short blurb of synthesis that has a list of videogames longer than the body. The current explanation of Gib's in Graphic violence is quite adequate. This should be deleted and have a redirect to that. Additionally, this topic doesn't have enough reliable sources or notability to stand on its own as an article. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Gib in lieu of any major notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the nominator in that the description in graphic violence is sufficient, and would suggest that as a preferential redirect target. I think this is a clear WP:NEO fail. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Gib. There's not much of a concept to gib that notable sources are likely to write about; I think WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies here. Graphic violence would be okay as a redirect target, but since gibs are not exactly a central aspect of the article subject, we can't rely on them always being covered in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - in the interest of forming a consensus here, though honestly, I'm not even sure it's plausible search term. If it were up to me, I'd just delete it, as it doesn't really seem notable at all. But "redirects are cheap", so I'm fine with that too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 6 December 2017 (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.