Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kith

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kith

A word with a random meaning someone made up for it. Not a dicdef since I can't find any verification of this use anywhere. - Bobet 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 04:14Z
• Delete. I've heard "kith and kin", but that would be a dicdef.--SarekOfVulcan 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• This qualifies as patent nonsense (though I decline to pay any patent fees for pointing it out) and the title-space should be locked (unless a verifiable other meaning can be adduced) in favour of the dictionary defintion (which, I understand, requires to be archived elsewhere) --Simon Cursitor 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. It's not incomprehensible. It does, however, have all of the appearance of an attack page — i.e. One chat room user has decided to write a disparaging article about the nickname of another chat room user. Uncle G 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Punkmorten 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'Kith' essentially means 'kindred' in typical usage, but this usage is non-notable B.ellis 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 18:49, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:13, 7 January 2006 (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.