Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osialfecanakmg


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Osialfecanakmg

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not a notable acronym/mnemonic, total lack of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Not even USEFUL.  How would you pronounce that? PianoDan (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEOLOGISM at best. The most I can find is tangential mention for some random quizzes using it for memorizing. Definitely no in-depth coverage. KoA (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete borders on patent nonsense. Probably some crap someone made up one day, or an obscure lovecrafian god. Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete While utter nonsense can be a lovely delight, it is, alas, not meant for wikipedia. -- Tautomers (T C) 06:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The best I can find is this study guide from a junior college. That doesn't make this pass WP:GNG, and additionally Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense crap. There are no useful search results. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:03, 29 November 2021 (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.