Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb (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. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interweb

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

Well, here we are, 18 months later, and the article, if anything, has gotten worse, not better. I think this reinforces my point that the article is not likely to ever become more than it is now, and what it is now is a dictionary entry.

Now, before we get into the same old arguments, let me stipulate a few things:

Yes, the article as it stands now is "more than just a dicdef". But dictionary definitions are not what is cautioned against by WP:NAD. Dictionary entries are, and dictionary entries can include much more than a simple definition. Comprehensive dictionaries include extensive etymology and lists of notable uses. There is quite literally nothing in this article that wouldn't be just as appropriate in a comprehensive dictionary.
Whether or not Wiktionary would include this content is irrelevant; Wiktionary is not the only dictionary in existence, nor, oddly enough, is it the most comprehensive dictionary in existence. All that matters is that the content is what would properly belong in a dictionary.
Original Research is not really an issue here, nor is notability. Although the number of citations is very low, I think notability is well established, and there really is no text here that takes such a logical leap as to risk being original research.

Powers ^T 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete Nominator argument appears basically sound. Lots of WP:OR and it's basically a dictionary definition followed by a random list of stuff. Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both dictionary defs and lists of pop culture in this form are discouraged by WP (WP:IPC). As it stands this article is little more than an acknowledgement of a humorous word, and hardly encyclopaedic. DB 103245^talk 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see how this can be a suitably encyclopedic topic. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Granted, I added the link to September That Never Ended. The IPC section alone should go, and that might help, as it does suitably describe the term, but to be blunt, this is better off living on Wiktionary if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's really nothing here that makes this an encyclopedia article. It's just an arbitrary list of places that a somewhat popular neologism has been used. It might as well be called List of media works that have used the word "interweb".-Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 8 October 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.