Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsunamaclus


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tsunamaclus

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. It's referenced, but the reference is not easy to verify; meanwhile the term gets precisely two google hits - it can't therefore be that popular.  role player 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't buy these references at all, esp. given the sophomoric quality of the article. A boy's band's work making it into Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms? Prove me wrong--but with the book in hand, please--and not the 1984 edition, which is the only listed on Merriam-Webster's website. (That is, there IS no 23rd, 2008 edition.) Hoax. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Two google hits from the same sales website no less. I doubt it also.  If someone's trying to popularize this, I can only say that it's too hard to spell, too long to text, too uncertain how to pronounce without sounding foolish.  I remember back in the 80s when people, in order to express the idea of "just kidding", would run a hand back over their head, and say what is listed most often as "Sike!!".  Nobody was really sure how to spell it (si-eek, psych, sike, psike, etc.).  However, until google says, "Did you mean ______", it's clear that this isn't even popular enough to be misspelled. Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 18 January 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.