Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzlock

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. -- Longhair\^talk 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzlock

Fuzzlock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non-notable neologism. Lankiveil (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of widespread use (or any use) supplied at all. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While ghits aren't a reliable a measure of notability, in this case, it can be a fair measure of non-notability, with a total of nine hits, most of which are character names in World of Warcraft or other pseudonyms. Even if this ever becomes a wide-spread neologism, it would better serve in wictionary. Yngvarr 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article itself calls the term part of a 'craze', thus wp:neo applies. Pharmboy (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and replace in Wikitionary (if you wish to try your luck).--VS ^talk 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete PN and ors. WP:HOLE, and i'm a 7th generation Australian and i've never heard this word used before. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (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.