Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaglexic

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. – Rob ert 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slaglexic[edit]

This article is essentially an attack page, and a hoax. Obviously no medical condition exists whose name is a fusion of crude slang and an unrelated Greek root. AlexTiefling 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hoax. DarthVad e r 11:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something made up in school one day. Kafziel 11:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. -- GWO
Delete I don't know about a speedy delete. Def. Hoax[1] Yanksox 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-nonsense}} or a hoax. --Elkman 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax/patent nonsense —M e ts501^talk 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The criteria for speedy deletion page makes a specific point of not including hoaxes. It's not patent nonsense; it has sentences, content, and some small measure of intelligibility. Kafziel 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so. It is alarming the number of articles that get through csd using those dubious reasons though. If the lister had have put the article on csd instead of here i would put money on it having been csd'ed. THE KING 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete While not patent nonsense, it is indeed complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 9 June 2006 (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.