Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.I.D
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. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G.I.D[edit]
- G.I.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was removed without comment or improvement. PROD rationale was "Unreferenced. Possible neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: WP:DICTIONARY". The page may also be a possible CSD G3 hoax. Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is barely more than patent nonsense-- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and anyway the article has no sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 10:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and speedy close. Written as a joke (and with poor punctuation in the title!) –SJ+ 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete vandalism RadioFan (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable neologism. LK (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.