Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghettotizer

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. Tone 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete No Google hits at all, quite possibly a hoax. Not even in Webster's dictionary or Britannica.
  talk) 04:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NEO. No references provided and no reliable sources to be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete - G3 hoax →Στc. 06:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but with the current state of CSD they're pretty dogmatic. I wish it were different, but here we are. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to be a hoax. MisterRichValentine (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete; all sorts of policies once could cite. Neologism that seems to have been invented by the author --Miskwito (talk) 22:00, 31 October 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.