Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klunked

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 Delete: Too new of slang per WP:NEO, too short per WP:DICDEF, not notable per WP:N, no good sources per WP:RS, and overwhelming consensus to delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klunked

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

Neologism lacking GHITS or GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations or context. Even if it was cited, it would still be something more appropriate for Urban Dictionary or wiktionary than for a Wikipedia article. --JamesAM (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism for which I can't find any verification. Even if I could, it would be a WP:DICTDEF. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I had to read it two or three times before the article's one sentence made sense to me. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They seriously need a CSD criterion for this junk. smithers - talk 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of non-notable neologisms. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2010 (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.