Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nibling

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.

Nibling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Non notable Neologism - Personally I've never heard of the word but anyway It's not a common-use term and it's unlikely it ever will be, Fails

• I'd completely forgot to say but I have no objections to any merges or redirects if that's preferred. Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is really about the word itself, not the "niblings" so it's against "not a dictionary." If it could be redirected that would be OK, but there probably is not an article about nieces and nephews collectively to redirect to. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 04:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• There was, until 7 April 2016, an article called
  Nephew, which until that day were redirects to "Nephew and niece". Currently Niece and nephew also redirects to Nibling. It seems to be the sensible thing would be to restore this version of Nephew and niece and make the other titles redirect there. (I would actually favor putting it at "Niece and nephew", but that may be another discussion.) The neologism is used there, but its 1951 coinage is not noted, so merge some of the "Nibling" content to the restored "Nephew and niece". Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge
  nephew and niece per Cnilep. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I have tagged the pages
  Niece for merger, and linked them here for discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, wikipedia afaik encourages brevity in terms of article titles. The current title seems to meet that precedent. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume you are referring to the Article titles policy section
    same page it suggests, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Nibling is more brief, but as a neologism I don't think it's sufficient to identify the topic, nor is it commonly used. Cnilep (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge nibling, nephew and niece to nephew and niece per others. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Cnilep. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no objection to merging
  nibling article outside the definition, which also exists, properly, at wikt:nibling. I don't see that there's anything to preserve here. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and combine with redirects all of nibling, nephew, niece. Aoziwe (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect as I see nothing to suggest this can become its own solid article anytime soon and there's nothing else convincing from there, can be mentioned there as sufficiently needed and that's all. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Whoa whoa whoa. First of all, we have way too many articles on this :) Second, there does exist a genetic term which encompasses both niece and nephew: second-degree relative. It's in use in scientific literature and seems a lot better than having separate articles for each -- and a whole lot better than going with a neologism. I noticed that we had a flatly incorrect article on
  second-degree relative. It's a common term in talking about heredity/risk of disease. So I'd say the other various articles on nieces and nephews, or nephews and nieces, should be redirected there, but we don't need to keep this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ...I'm holding off on e.g. adding the new page to the navbox until this AfD is over (one isn't necessarily dependent on the other, but it's a relevant discussion, of course, and it's possible people may disagree that the genetic term is the best way to go). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unencyclopedic,
  WP:DICDEF. The mess of articles aside, when the first set of hits is Wiktionary, Urban Dictionary, and WP (as opposed to an actual dictionary) that should indicate something about its lack of use, especially when it;s an uncommon word. The dictionary entries are all user-added content, by the way, so there's no RS there either. The content is basically the Wiktionary entry as it is. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2016 (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.