Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurabyx


 * 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.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurabyx

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

no assertion of wide use; an old neologism (oldolgism? Whatever.) Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article and the other two created by the same person, WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced, and smells an awful lot like a hoax. (Added the "other" article mentioned above, the third one is a redirect.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G3, tagged - I'm not sure we need to send this through the seven day process. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some admins would rather let clear WP:BOLLOCKS slog through afd for five days. God forbid anything that's total nonsense should be speedied. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it a blatant hoax? No. Is patent nonsense applicable? No. Is WP:BOLLOCKS even a guideline or policy? No. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's bollocks? I certainly suspect it is, but I have no way of being sure that there wasn't some 17th-century guy with this name who coined this word.  If the article said that Janis Joplin was the first astronaut to walk on the Moon, then I would know it was bollocks.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an obvious and blatant hoax when I read it. Drawn Some (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I normally judge it is "if it reads as bullshit without going elsewhere, blatant hoax. If I need a google search to establish anything, not blatant". Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you were the administrator declining the speedy. I agree with your reasoning and practice, that is an excellent rule of thumb.  I always glaze over those pronunciation symbol abominations but when I got to "Pierre de la Peu'p" it became obvious to me. Drawn Some (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, heh. I think it was RnB who declined it. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete all. If you pronounce the name, it's "Pierre de la Poopy".  NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. No high noble Frenchman would be "de la Poopy". No sources, and no credibility. Renaissancee (talk) 22:48, 7 May 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.