Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fygnificm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 01:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fygnificm

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

Non-notable slang term fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:V. Suspected hoax. Disputed Prod. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The edit which removed the "prod" tag had earmarkings of vandalism, not a good-faith effort to improve the page or dispute the tagging. The anon editor, for example, removed other tags and edits with no explanation or justification. I would not have called this a disputed prod. Regardless, delete both for being a mere dictionary definition and a hoax. Rossami (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete complete and total dog shit. JuJube (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best an unnotable WP:DICDEF. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Google finds absolutely nothing. Even if it were a real word, it would almost certainly be a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per G1 and possibly G3. RC-0722 247.5/1 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: While it may be vandalism (G3), there is no confirming evidence in the contributor's edit history to clearly demonstrate it. It is definitely not patent nonsense (G1) in the very narrow way we use that term at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think that AFD is now the only way to go. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Are we at WP:SNOW yet? DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Why should we be trying to make a rush to judgment? The process appears to be working fine. Rossami (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • This is a case where process gives crap more life than it deserves. DarkAudit (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with lots of extra snow. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable.--Berig (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:14, 15 April 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.