Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally arbit funda

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.--Kubigula (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally arbit funda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod; subject to me appears to be a case of WP:NFT; 1 non-wiki google hit supports this. Marasmusine (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable neologism for a putative literary genre. Dgf32 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:NFT. Hazillow (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The article claims to document the emergence of a new literary genre without taking the trouble to describe it. The unintelligible title doesn't help. This is a very brief article without real content or context, and as such is a case for WP:CSD #A1 or #A3. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A1. Tagged as such. It exists. Maybe. But nothing to say what it is or why it's notable. DarkAudit (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is the only possible outcome here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (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.