Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungftak (2nd nomination)

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) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jungftak[edit]

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

Entry in a redlinked dictionary. Sources do not appear reliable; search shows <400 hits for the term, none reliable. Last AFD withdrawn because of source #2. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a perfectly cromulent word, but delete under WP:NEO anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the definition to Fictitious entry (or maybe redirect?) - there are plenty of these mountweazels around, but they don't each warrant their own article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: might be a neologism. Can't WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:19, 5 April 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.