Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerfundel


 * 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 (as speedy/snow). Neutralitytalk 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kerfundel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I originally under the criteria: "The article is about a word invented by the page's creator which appears to only be used among the author's friends, failing WP:NOTE." (In retrospect, I probably should have nominated it for speedy deletion.) The page's creator removed the template without giving a reason, and the original criteria still stand. —Ins a nity Inc a rn a teTalk 07:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't seem like a clear-cut speedy candidate but is an obviously little-known neologism, and should be deleted per WP:NEO. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete - speedy does seem appropriate to me, but this fails both WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP, so a standard delete will suffice.  Colon el  Tom 08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- obviously. Why on earth don't we have a speedy deletion criterion for such useless nonsense as this? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a speedy candidate and obviously isn't a snow candidate yet, but it is a term someone just made up last week and is looking to popularize by using Wikipedia, which is the defacto reason we have WP:NEO.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete This isn't Urban Dictionary. Joefridayquaker (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2011 (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.