Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abgithetzqwrashamenkegadikeshbamratztaghaqamamamnayaglepzeqsheqiayeth


 * 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. Snowball or speedy G1, take your pick.  Daniel  04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Abgithetzqwrashamenkegadikeshbamratztaghaqamamamnayaglepzeqsheqiayeth

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

0 non-wiki ghits, no real assertion of notability in article, no sources offered to show notability. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC) what do you want for "notability"? the word is listed in Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia, but that's not on the web anywhere...Przxqgl 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for obvious reasons. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Jet. —Signed by KoЯn fan71 My TalkSign Here! 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I don't think there needs to be a deletion justification argument for this one! Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to above: If you provided some sort of ref in the article, that might have helped. Are there any other refs available? If the word only exists in the encyclopedia you mention, then it still might not be considered notable. As for me, the phrase that bothers me is "I have had the presumtion to Anglicise" (sic), which implies original research. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unnotable unsourced arcane kabalistic esoteric nonsense--Victor falk 01:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it's also listed without the Anglisization, in 777, by Aleister Crowley, but that's not on the web either...Przxqgl 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Plainly non-notable, unsourced, and (In my opinion) ridicules material. --Mark (Mschel) 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

so an article about Bob Larson isn't ridiculous, but an article about a detail of cabalist ritual is... just so i'm clear on this.Przxqgl 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete I'm sure there are plenty of words invented by Crowely notabilty is not inherited. Ridernyc 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Very limited notability and usefulness. Although this isn't a valid argument here, I'm imagining a clever git moving the page by changing one letter in it. Tell the truth, I'm also having a bit of trouble conceptualizing someone typing the word into a search engine. Again, not a valid strike against it, just my thought. Pigman 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm inclined to speedy on nonsense, but it is not patently so.  No use outside of cabalism.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this should have been speedied as nonsense.  Miranda  03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to aaklsbklasdjhrewhrewviorewnbkjbvuiotygfdbvclrhs. What?! There's no article on that? Okay, then delete as nonsense. Clarityfiend 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not one source for what presents as a theological phenomenon? fry it. ThuranX 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.