Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flibbering

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flibbering

Nonsense. Something made up. My db-nonsense tag was removed and a "copy to wiktionary" template put in its place. Wiktionary doesn't want nonsense any more than Wikipedia does. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP. If only Urban Dictionary provided instant gratification like Wikipedia instead of making people wait several days to see their flibber show up. Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Drawn Some here - a quick Google search reveals nothing other than gibberish about 'flibbering'! JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy as nonsense does not apply, as the content does not "consist purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". It isn't entirely made up either, as some journalists and authors have used the word. But there is nothing of substance to write about it. Fences and windows (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nonsense. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, as Fences and windows explained (and I would have thought that TenPoundHammer would have learnt by now not to edit war over speedy deletion tags), but clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is an attempt at a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. Whether Wiktionary wants it or not should be decided by that project, not by us, as editors here can't be expected to be conversant with their policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think throwing nonsense at Wiktionary is very collegial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "not very collegial" is an overly-nice way of putting it. Drawn Some (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it would be very collegial, and would in fact be very arrogant, for us to refuse to let our sister project use its own procedures to decide for itself whether it wants this or not. This is clearly an attempt to create a dictionary entry so any decision about its future should be made by the project that deals with dictionary entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page lacks any citations. I was unable to find any reliable sources during a brief search. The word may be related to Flibbertigibbet, but since WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a merger or redirect suggesting as much would be inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or give to Wiktionary - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not one with one line entries and no citations. Zivlok (talk) 20:29, 24 May 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.