This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic neologism. not even for wiktionary -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's already in wiktionary.
Delete. Has been deleted twice already. [1] - Thatdog 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- if it has been twice deleted, then it falls under a speedy delete according to criteria in WP:CSD, perhaps protecting from recreate would help too. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, the previous deletions were speedy and this has not been through VfD before. Therefore it does not qualify for speedy. My bad. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- if it has been twice deleted, then it falls under a speedy delete according to criteria in WP:CSD, perhaps protecting from recreate would help too. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable activity. Kappa 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete. Activity (or lack of it) may be notable, especially at the time, but the neologism is a dic
kdef which is already in Wiktionary. WP:ISNOT Wiktionary. Tonywalton | Talk 00:42, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.