Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Got the morbs


 * 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Got the morbs

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Being mentioned in a few Buzzfeedy articles about "funny expressions from the Victorian Age!" doesn't address WP:GNG either. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC) .
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems somewhat well sourced and is longer than I expected. Not a strong case, but decent. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this article on this Victorian slang goes beyond WP:DICDEF including both Etymology and the history, and the first use of the term in a post Victorian era dictionary. There are also more references which can be added from historic newsprint. Bruxton (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. DICDEF includes etymology and history, along with definition and usage, as elements of dictionary content appropriate to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. (As an aside: Wiktionary doesn't have the phrase, and morb currently contains only a Romanian word.) An argument could perhaps be made per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as there are sources cited. Ultimately I come down on the delete side, though, since the citations seem to point to a catalog of curiosities (a band, an album title, and one comment on television using the archaic phrase) rather than discussion sufficient to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: thanks for the rationale. The band references are going beyond the dictionary definition for uses in popular culture. I also consider that there is room to expand the article. Please consider that every dictionary entry for the term including our own wiktionary entry for morb only covers this much File:1909 dictionary definition for Got the Morbs.png. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: See morbs, which I recently created, citing Ware among others. Cnilep (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a classic example of a DICDEF. Bruxton notes above that there's etymology and history in the article (history? really?), but WP:NOTDICT specifically notes that this is the kind of information that's suited for a dictionary.  This isn't sufficient to keep an article about a word/phrase.  There's nothing even remotely approaching the kind of in-depth coverage that would be required for notability.  For an example of the kind of word that does rise to that level, see Ain't.  But the vast, vast majority of words can't.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is encyclopedic and goes beyond a simple dicdef. Similar to the article Put on airs or Circle the wagons. Lightburst (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Lightburst's reasoning. This goes beyond a DICDEF and there is further room for expansion, as in those other articles cited by Lightburst. Criticalus (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or Soft redirect to Wiktionary - Seems like a straightforwrad WP:DICDEF: definition, usage... that's it. As that guideline says such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.). If it meant something truly novel that couldn't be captured in another article (like sadness), there would be more of a case, but it's just ... a funky slang term for sadness. That's what Wiktionary is for. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The source used for the phrase "Got the morbs" is the dictionary definition in the Passing English of the Victorian Era (1909) by James Redding Ware. Basically, all other sources in the article, except for the popular culture section, derive from this one book.
 * I note the phrase is being resurrected on social media and blogs. Other instances of usage include 2 electronica track titles. So, the Popular culture section could be expanded with further trivia. However, my searches show little or no encyclopedic material with which to develop the article. An Internet Archive text content search for "got the morbs" yielded 21 results. Two are in novels written since 2000. The remainder are in versions of the dictionary listed, or in one other dictionary of slang. I expected to see many more instances.


 * The article amounts to little more than a dictionary definition WP:DICDEF, Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT and the phrase belongs in Wiktionary, rather than Wikipedia. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT unless reliable sources are found "on the social or historical significance of the term". If such sources are put up, I'll reconsider, but I'm doubtful they exist. Rupples (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve</b>/ talk ¦ contribs \ 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this article goes beyond a DICDEF. I think the article is more suitable for an encyclopedia than a dictionary as it offers a bit of information on socio-cultural usage of the phrase and its history that would not be seen in a Wiktionary entry. Some of the sources are more like listicles but I think that can be improved. But if not kept, then redirect, if the phrase exists at Wiktionary. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep largely per Liz and Lightburst. I haven't heard a persuasive response to their argument, given this is no random dictionary phrase. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Lightburst and Liz bring up good arguments. New sources can expand article. Equine-man (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.