- 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 Speedy delete per consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia and, in my opinion, WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rindiddig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page contains no more information on this word then a dictionary definition, so does not pass WP:NOTDIC. Also, the person has said on their user page that they made this up, so page does not pass WP:MADEUP. As well as this there are no google hits, or google dictionary hits so WP:NEO seems to apply to this page Kingpin13 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. PROD was contested by creator - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) Also delete as per WP:NOTDIC and WP:MADEUP per nom. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, and thanks for your !vote. But please remember that G1 only applies to pages where the content is either a random string of characters (e.g. "gfbgnbv"), or it is so completely confused that you can not possibly make sense of it (e.g. "Hello green lol sky is black starts pretty turns gone"), see WP:PN for more wonderful cases of gibberish ;). In this case it's fairly easy to make sense of the page, so I don't think that G1 is appropriate. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct - just my misinterpretation of what criterion it would fall under, but it still qualifies as speedy deletion, no doubt. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Obviously. (Kingpin - if it is a patently deletable, why fuss over which criterion applies - would you accept vandalism?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Obviously, everything was made up at some time, but the guideline makes clear that notability must be established outside of WP. (and there are no references in Google outside of WP) By the way, this article is a perfect example of why I think that newly created articles should have a default NOINDEX template until reviewed for possible deletion. This editor has achieved their desired purpose, as the word is now found in Google, an achievement not as likely if posted to, say a personal web site. Deleting this article will minimize, but not eliminate the damage. While the damage it admittedly minor, it could easily have been prevented.--SPhilbrickT 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I don't think I need to say why. IJA (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since this is made up. Speedy delete since common sense dictates we should. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Snowball clause, WP:MADEUP and spam. I don't think it would be unfair for a nonadmin to delete.--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MADEUP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (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.