Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Num

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 and redirect to NUM. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Num

Nonnotable someone's neologism. No evidence of active usage. `'Míkka >t 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Del - too little cont and too few sour to be worth kee. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del - omg, neo, wp:n. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Clubmarx (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like WP:NFT -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NUM. --Itub (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but delete the bad article first. `'Míkka >t 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with redirect (prefer after delete but not required to make me happy). Never thought to look for an all cap version of that....duh me. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should have a look at the history, as well. The article that was originally here was moved to Num (disambiguation) by this article's creator. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source, protologism Dagordon01 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 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.