Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jequebskeet


 * 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 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jequebskeet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: Utter nonsense - fails WP:DICDEF and WP:NFT – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Its total lack of references is suspect; the fact that it gets 2 google hits - both Wikipedia - is conclusive. Hoax! Brianyoumans 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tivedshambo. However, the article is about a neologism, which fails criteria for speedy deletion.  I agree that it is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and I suggested to the author that he submit the word to Urban Dictionary.  Cited Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and also said that if the word could be found in a real dictionary, it could be added to Wiktionary.  (However, this does not appear to be the case.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C)
 * Delete, innocent mistake on the part of the contributor. Good idea to suggest that he submit the word to urban dictionary. THE KING 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per prior users comments. Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete complete nonsense. Chris!  c t 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Quite aside from all the above reasons, it doesn't even have an IPA pronunciation guide. It's got to go. ObfuscatePenguin 01:54, 30 October 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.