Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated pornography
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 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Integrated pornography
Non-notable "recently coined" term with no evidence of use found. References provided are about HD video, not the subject. Made up, original research at best. Contested Prod. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete - non-notable (possibly spurious) neologism with no verifiability; apparently WP:OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - completely unverifiable. Can't find any sources on this, reliable or otherwise. Sources in article have nothing to do with it.--BelovedFreak 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, attempt to promote a protologism, without even the courtesy of sources proving it exists. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as a non-notable neologism and likely original research. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Noids do not have sex with doodles. Oh, and per all of the above - silly neologistic buzzword. JuJube (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Differeniate and delete Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant protologism without any sources. To be honest I'd like to see an example out of curiosity, though! ~ mazca talk 21:02, 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.
