Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoodtrosexual


 * 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hoodtrosexual

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contested proposed deletion. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete As the user who originally WP:PRODed the article. Clearly non-notable neologism. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the . Tsk tsk. :-) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let the self-flogging begin :D - Running On Brains (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the approximately 50 Google references, none are reliable (and many seem to be the creator's attempt to popularize this neologism).  As per Gogo Dodo, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.  Ubelowme (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... > Carrite (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable neologism. Per above. Acebulf (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism with no evidence of use outside this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway, but especially not of words someone just made up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly made-up baloney.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. non-notable neologism. Maratrean (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Hoax.  Besides the obvious WP:NEOLOGISM problem and open WP:OR in the article, in a google search I found only Wiki mirrors.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - chances of there are that this is completely a G3 (or OR) and if it is true then no where near to WP:N.  →TSU tp* 09:41, 11 June 2012 (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.