Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude

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 snowball keep, non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

The article is a dictionary definition; it is all about the word dude - its usage, pronunciation and origin. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Dude" is as much an idea and recurring social trope as it is a word. And even if it is just a word, we have plenty of articles about important words. That said, this is a pretty lousy article. But a rewrite would help more than deletion would.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry dude, but WP:DICT as per nom Bardcom (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is more than just a dicdef, and word has historical and cultural significance. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do concede that much of the "in popular culture" should be trimmed to include only verified and truly notable occurences. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be useful to compare the treatment of similar words such as guy, bloke and hombre. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think that this would be terrible, but it is very well written. I'm a middle schooler (I use dude often), but this was very informative.Mm40 (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and pattern after Dandy --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICDEF prohibits articles on words that are just dictionary-like definitions. This article is not. It is an important word. It seems notable, and even if it wasn't, I would still probably support keeping it. IAR and all that. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I struggle to think of what non-dictionary information could be relevant to this article without being a list of pop culture references. What prose is there to write? Remy B (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the difference is that this word is notable. We do have articles about words, after all; see User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words <eleland/talkedits> 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current article is not well written, but I contend it is possible to build a reasonable article about the word "dude" from proper soucres. For example this article from Random House would seem to be a promising starting point for an editor interested in creating a good article on the subject, particularly how the term has evolved and its impact on society and culture. Or how about this interesting article on the "dude vote" which may also warrant inclusion? Here is a book on dude ranches, another rich source of material and here is another. I'm sure with a bit of digging a plethora of books and articles could be found to write a really interesting and well researched article here. The fact that the current article is below standard should encourage us to improve it, not delete it, as long as we can find good sources to work from, which I think we can here. Gwernol 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more: this article from the journal American Speech, Deborah Hick's book "Discourse, Learning, and Schooling" and this paper also from American Speech. Gwernol 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have proper articles on concepts like Youth vote and Dude ranch. All that's left is discussion of the word as a word and that is dictionary material. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word's cultural relevance and linguistical impact is more than sufficient to keep its place. If the article isn't great quality, it can always be restructured or improved upon. - Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dude, no. BJ^Talk 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Above, Dude. Dadude3320 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this user has clear conflict of interest issues =). cab (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is considerably more than a dicdef. I'm not sure it'll get much longer, but we don't delete stubs for being stubs. Only reason I'm not WP:SNOWing this is because there seem to be some questions about inclusion, but I'm sure this is snowable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than a dicdef - history, culture, significance, &c. --Oldak Quill 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. JNW (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gwernol's arguments and links demonstrating that something beyond a dictdef can be written. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is more than just a dicdef and offers the promise of possible further improvement (e.g. more/better references.) OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article was defining the word, then delete. If it was an obscure protologism with no background or widespread usage, then delete. However, clearly the word possess notability. It's an example of vernacular with culture significance. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve. —Kenyon (t·c) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Probably should wait a day or two, but I'm guessing this discussion should be closed per WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable term. Articles come and go, but The Dude abides. JJL (talk)
Keep I'm all for deleting pure one-line dictionary definitions, but any articles about a word or term which go into this much detail are actual articles. --Canley (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable term and a reasonable article subject. Maxa megalon 2000 05:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chill, dude.Andycjp (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, dude! If my students are anything to go by, duuuuuuude is one of the most important words in English. Besides, we have a whole article on valspeak, of which dude is a righteous part. phoebe/(talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles shouldn't be written by citing the dictionary, but the journal article in American Speech [1] listed in the external links section strongly suggests this is an encyclopedic topic, even if not presently a very good article. cab (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, plenty of room to expand this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 10 March 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.