Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poohdgy

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. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poohdgy[edit]

Made up WP:Neologism. Why isn't there an IAR speedy delete? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were. But I think you could have called this one G1, "patent nonsense," and got away with it.:) Sticky Parkin 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT, WP:NOT a slang guide, WP:NOT a dictionary, ... oh well. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Patent nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY et all, but please not speedy per CSD G1 because it is not obvious patent nonsense, ie "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". Misusing G1 because it's convenient is an abuse of CSD. And if we delete it via AfD debate, rather than cheating and speedying it, we then have the rationale to squish it again without debate if it reappears. Ka renjc 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute and total dogshit. JuJube (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it isn't made-up (and I suspect it is), it's more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Brain Rodeo (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2008 (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.