Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smirting (2nd nomination)
In my opinion, the article is already a bit more than a |dictionary definition, and given the number of sources available on the net (see my comment above), I don't see why it can't be expanded some more. Remember, an encyclopedic |stub usually strongly resembles a dictionary definition when it first starts out.  The sources provided in the article demonstrate that both the term and the phenomenon are |Wikipedia notable, regardless of the origin of the word.  If the word has fallen into disuse, that does not affect its notability for Wikipedia's purposes, as TEMP|notability is not temporary. —&nbsp
— User:LinguistAtLarge, 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:DICDEF||WP:STUB||WP:N||WP:NTEMP (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)