Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangry


 * 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. JForget 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hangry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD removed. Speedy declined (by IP). Neologism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTDICT and total failure of WP:V; a local website and Urbandictionary.com (although the latter is quite amusing) are not nearly enough notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話す下さい)  17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)   I am totally saving this somewhere, though,
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to NOTDICT and complete lack of substance Mahewa (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. I couldn't find any Ghits except for what Blade pointed out. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:NEO. Ryan Norton 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedlete Carrite (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain my position from above, but I wanted to copy over a comment left on the discussion page so it's included, since it appears that the user wasn't aware the discussion happens here. I think it has to be interpreted as a Keep.-- &Dagger; M A HE W A &Dagger;   &bull;   talk  17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)"Since the purpose of encyclopedias is to categorize the entire range of human knowledge, the entry for hangry is entirely appropriate for wikipedia. While the use of hangry is localized to specific geographic areas in the United States, such as Washington DC and parts in the north east, it is used and therefore deserves to be including in a site categorizing the entire range of knowledge. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.151.62 (talk"
 * 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.