Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimmetting

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 speedy delete. as unsourced questionable WP:BLP, as well as per WP:NEO and WP:NFT JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmetting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. The article consists solely of unsourced claims & personal reflections. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. —Noiratsi (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the word exists, which I doubt, it will be very limited in use. Not a suitable subject for an article. Another article Stendan by this author is at PROD for similar reasons. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if applicable, or as a second choice, delete as fast as possible per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of WP:RS coverage, hence it's not notable. Wikipedia doesn't have pages for far more well-known and popular shippings than this: e.g. Harry Potter shipping is discussed in the article on shipping rather than having a Ron-Hermione page, etc. And I don't see any clamor to change this policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (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.