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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indescrignified[edit]

Indescrignified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a non-notable neologism whose notability is coming soon. Prod removed by author. TheLetterM (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MADEUP & WP:NEO both. Drawn Some (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've put nowiki tags as an anti-google-promotion measure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a cromulent term. That and WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Probably should have been speedy deleted as patent nonsense. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong (Speedy?) Delete Wow, seems like someone just made this up and typed it into wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The version of this article at the time of my comment here has devolved into an unambiguous proselytizing screed (in which there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just not encyclopedic). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (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.