Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huggle

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. Proto::► 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle[edit]

Unsourced, original research Naconkantari 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. also. John Reaves 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and nom. Jayden54 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, or at least a dicdef. Koweja 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire - unsourced, WP:NOR, and per above. Yuser31415 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. TSO1D 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article should be noted as {{cleanup-date|January 2007}} {{unreferenced|article}} {{Orphan|January 2007}} {{Uncategorized|January 2007}} However, comparing it to random articles from the Category:Portmanteaus, it is an appropriate article. It could easily be turned into something like a joggling article. Encouragement is what is needed not deletion. TonyTheTiger 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, joggling has an entry in Guiness World Records and huggling does not. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, dictdef, lots of other stuff. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used it today to explain the term to a co-worker. So it's useful, which is surely the first test. Besides, the term's been around for at least 10 years. NuDejaNews shoes the term the term already in circulation in '93. This isn't some 4chan meme- Huggle is entrenched enough to deserve an article.-Derik18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it isn't a neologism (might not be, I didn't realize it was that old) the article is still a dictionary definition and can't really become anything more. Koweja 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a good reason to keep (see WP:ILIKEIT). A better place is Wiktionary which takes articles like these. Axem Titanium 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DELETE, fails WP:NEO, WP:NOT a dictionary, unsourced, original research, no independent and reliable sources. Burn it. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 7 January 2007 (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.