Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angst porn


 * 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.  jj137  ♠ 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Angst porn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about a phrase that obviously violates WP:NEO, is not notable as well. Article was up for speedy, couldn't find a reason for speedy so I changed tag and afd'ed it. Pharmboy (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (I was the person who put speedy on it.) --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I pulled one speedy tag that was different (wasn't a speedy reason, by my judgement) but thx for the update, perhaps we can speedy and just be done with it after all. Pharmboy (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is one of those things I wish WP:SPEEDY included.  Ford MF (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO, like nom says.   Happy New Year!!  Malinaccier (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a neologism, and a poor one at that (nothing even related to porn). J- ſtan ContribsUser page 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Didnt even need Afd to me. Should have handled with WP:SPEEDY.   U z EE   (Talk • Contribs) 04:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete almost outright nonsense.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per the above reasons + nom. Ohmpandya   ( Talk )  17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Junk it before Wikipedia inadvertently invents it by allowing it to live.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Superm401 - Talk 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dicitonary --Drhlajos (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (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.