Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plomkinjubhyvgtcfrxdezswaq


 * 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 speedy delete. CSD A11 this is clearly something which is invented, and additionally, is a neologism. There's also clear consensus for deletion already at the AfD, with more participation than most AfDs see. Nick (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Plomkinjubhyvgtcfrxdezswaq

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable term/neologism. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but particularly in this case, this definitely isn't a notable term. Praxidicae (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete we don't keep pages just because they are considered humorous. This word doesn't seem to be notable at all, not to mention the fact, as nom notes, that we aren't a dictionary. Content like this is well suited for the likes of 'urban dictionary' (where it already exists), but not for Wikipedia. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic content.  Non-notable, sourcing is incredibly unreliable, and not a dictionary or a neologism database. Hog Farm Bacon 15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per Nom, doesn't fits in the catagory of an Encyclopedic Article at all and doesn't seem to be notable too. Stonertone (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2020 (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.