Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikilinkimania


 * 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. Not quite funny enough for BJAODN. --Core desat  04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinkimania

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a neologism. Someone previously prodded the article, but the creator removed it. Squirepants101 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cute, but utterly without merit. Caknuck 16:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as I was the orginal prod-der. ...  disco spinster   talk  17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:NFT. Walton monarchist89 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WP:NFT isn't a speedy deletion criteria. See criteria for speedy deletion for a list of what the criteria are. Picaroon 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't a widely used term, therefore failing the Avoid neologisms guideline, and isn't verifiable, therefore being incompatible with the Verifiability policy. This is possibly the first non patent nonsense article I've ever seen which doesn't get a single Google hit. The two external links seem entirely unrelated. Picaroon 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regular Delete as an uncited and unverified neologism.-- danntm T C 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, this is obviously a joke, guys. --Candy-Panda 09:33, 21 January 2007 (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.