Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowedgeability

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. Sr13 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowedgeability

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

Prod rationale was "Coined word which is provided with a dictionary definition only. No entry for the item in Merriam-Webster. No sources, so the term cannot be verified." Deprodded by original editor, who initially provided a source at Urbandictionary, then a source at a site which is a broken link. Highly non-notable neologism, which I strongly feel should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research essay. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above; blatant OR. YechielMan 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Resolute 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• This article ranks highly in terms of Delete-ability. --Gavin Collins 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- OR. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 21:04, 21 June 2007 UTC)

• Delete it's NEO, OR, or both. Capmango 04:23, 22 June 2007 (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.