Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfuckupable

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfuckupable[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable term. Also WP:NOTDICT Praxidicae (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it should be kept, I don't think it's nonsense. Hvnlytearss (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICT applies here. However, I'd argue that could undergo a Speedy Delete as vandalism, given the tone of the article and the fact that the one source being used doesn't even corroborate the definition this attempted joke is claiming. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT. (Plus we've got this word covered already at Wiktionary - this article adds nothing verifiable to that). GirthSummit _(blether) 22:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, especially that the term is obscure and has no notable uses, in contrast to LOL. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT End of. Trillfendi (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rorshacma: What else makes you think this is vandalism and not just a poor-quality good-faith page writing? AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I mentioned, the only source being used here (from definitions.net, which itself is taking the information from Wiktionary) does not even support the information that the article creator tagged it to. That strikes me as an intentional bit of misdirection. The same user also recently edited the Wiktionary entry on the word to add this same definition to it, that is tagged as being unverified. It looks more like a concentrated effort to coin a new use for the slang by the user than a legitimate attempt to create an article. Of course, I could be wrong, and this could have just been a very misguided attempt to create a legitimate article. It doesn't really matter at this point, as it does not appear that there is any chance at this not being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, G1 (patent nonsense) doesn't apply here: "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnUnnamedUser No one has suggested G1...Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICT akso this is not widely used term Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A new word every day, however this isn't Wiktionary. Clear WP:DICTDEF fail. Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense terminology. Barca (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a dictionary, and it has no place here. Let Wiktionary or whoever sort it out please, not us. DBaK (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. It's Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2019 (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.