Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shlumpadinka


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shlumpadinka

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and It should be redirected or deleted  Yash  t  101   02:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: This should ideally be on Wiktionary. A quick Google source would show a Marriam-Webster entry. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I really doubt this meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. Angr (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether it goes to Wiktionary or not, it still is a delete here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. But you said "This should ideally be on Wiktionary", and as a Wiktionarian as well as a Wikipedian I'm responding to that comment with a "No, it shouldn't. It should just be deleted." Angr (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but there is a Marriam-Webster entry on it. This can be discussed there, but I'm still with Delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. Maybe this is a female thing, but I'm in favor of it. I'd like to see it kept in some form; cretainly not disappear entirely, especially if it has a Merriam-Webster entry. One option would be to merge with Oprah article. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki I agree that this belongs on wiktionary, but it doesn't belong here, so I'd delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millermk90 (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I fail to see how this is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't look like anything more than a non-notable neologism. §everal⇒|Times 15:48, 16 May 2012 (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.