Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscimony

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscimony

Hoax? Zero hits in Google for the word. Phyletic gradualism does not seem compatible with The Theory of Oscimony presented in this article, contrary to what the article says. (I think) ??? KarenAnn 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Caesura^(t) 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete May not be a hoax, ive come across words that are so new that Google doesnt even know about them. My justifcation for deletion is that if this is one of said words, it needs to pass WP:V. One cant expect an entirly new, esoteric word to be commonly known.-(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V and smells of WP:OR and WP:NEO. Scorpiondollprincess 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Massmato 16:42, 22 July 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.