Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umarfaroukabdulmutallibism

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 speedily deleted (G3, hoax) by Materialscientist. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umarfaroukabdulmutallibism[edit]

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

WP:NEO and no reliable sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap it, no doubt. not only is it non notable as a neologism, there's no support at all that anyone other than the page author has ever used it as such. Angrysockhop ^{(and a happy new year)} 08:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really detailed definition for something that has supposedly become all the rage on Facebook. Nah, I don't think so. I'll reconsider if there's a report that someone had an accident while trying to text the word u-m-a-r-f-a... Maybe this can be brought back next year as part of the article "Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab in popular culture" (i.e., "on The Simpsons, Homer buys underwear with the label 'Umar Farouk' on it and blows up") Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the truimvirate of Wp:NEO, Wp:NFT and Wp:NOR. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Even if this word was actually a word, it would fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. In addition, Google only throws up three different web sites, so it's certainly not a notable non-word. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably right away. In addition to the previously mentioned policies, we should also probably keeping WP:BLP in mind as well. Granted, this isn't a biography, but this is a neologism that is based off of the name of a person (himself notable for one event only), so I think that the policy can be adapted to fit in this case. Given the other issues raised above, and given potential BLP troubles, deleting ASAP seems the best course of action.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.187.44.141 (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a dictionary.. If this was needed in the first place, it should be at Wiktionary and NOT here.. Besides, it seems like it is aimed at a particular person.. This should have been taken to CSD in the first place... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, this AfD can now be closed, as somebody tagged it for CSD, and it has been deleted under G3.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2010 (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.