Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fug

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fug

Pointless entry should be on 'pedia. Irishpunktom\^talk 11:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as neologistic dicdef. We've got an article on smog which should suffice. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dicdefs can fug off. TheMadBaron 12:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a neologism, but a dictdef with a better entry already in Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Groeck 18:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move to Wiktionary. ♠ DanMS 00:02, 23 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.