Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Cred


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

G-Cred

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.
 * WP:NOR, Appears to be a new phrase and might be Original Research.
 * Lacks sufficient Reliable Sources, only 1 article is linked -GateKeeper(X) @ 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * note: I found this article that says this term was "accepted by Wikipedia," I guess we'll want to call them back if this gets deleted... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete so sorry to disappoint Follis, but he's gonna look really foolish in five days... JuJube (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - surprised this stuck around for so long. This certainly appears to be an OR neologism which has failed to catch on. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: this won't even survive Wiktionary. Alexius08 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2009 (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.