Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuda


 * 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. --- Gl e n 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuda
Non-notable neologism with no assertion of notability not supported by reliable sources. Prod removed. cmhTC 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources added by are real, but they make no mention of this concept.  Searching for actual sources turns up nothing at all.  Notability is irrelevant.  This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I've never heard of this term, not really notable enough I think. Lankiveil 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete per Uncle G. Valrith 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Save per This is ridic IBrooksBro This is ridiculous, Fuda is a common word often used in everyday conversation. If it is believed that it doesn’t exist, maybe you should go to ‘wikipeida’ and learn. If this site is about knowledge why try to defeat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.249.236 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-10 14:03:16
 * Comment This isn't knowledge, and I, like most others, have never used "fuda" in a conversation. Nonsense is not knowledge. Danny Lilithborne 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Fuda is something that is commonly said, especially in pop-culture. This week Scene magazine, an Australian music magazine is listing 'Fuda' as the word of the week. Enough said. User: LauraGalletly 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Whether a word is in use is an argument that is relevant to Wiktionary.  Whether there can be an encyclopaedia article written about the concept that word denotes is the argument relevant here, and you have not refuted the assertion (which you can do by citing sources &mdash; real ones, not just random articles in the hopes that no-one will check) that this article is unverifiable &mdash; i.e. there is no source material on the subject of fudas. Uncle G 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No relevant google hits besides Urban Dictionary, which is the perfect place for this word. The article did make me giggle though -- what a terrible acronym! Dina 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. Th ε Halo Θ 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. Ergative rlt 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete joke/hoax article. My Alt Account 01:17, 11 September 2006 (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.