Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat wank


 * 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. DS 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fat wank
Dubious verifiability; we don't need an article on every entry in Urban Dictionary. No G-hits for the term defined. Previously speedied as G1 by NawlinWiki. riana_dzasta 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  per nom. Shaundakulbara 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether verifiable or not is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang.--Anthony.bradbury 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, and virtually empty anyway. Wikipedia is not a place for dicdefs, if you'll pardon the excruciating pun. Moreschi Deletion! 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn neologism, 1020 ghits. MER-C 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  per nom. Also found Lipid intercourse (created by same user) has been prodded.  Does this need a separate AFD nomination, or can it be considered for deletion here as well? Robotman1974 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as redirect to non-existent article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unverfied neologism.-- danntm T C 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  per nom. Virtually no text, plus other reasons given. Mathmo Talk 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Starblind. JuJube 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - CSD R1 - failed redirect to non-existent article. --tgheretford (talk) 20:45, 5 February 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.