Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hecknicity

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 per WP:SNOW as a Hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hecknicity

Speediest delete possible. Not only is it a definition, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it's nonexistent according to Google. Also, the sources given are only sources for roots, not for the actual word. A non-author user Hwthwr (likely a sock-puppet) opined that "Although it is obsolete, this page will come in handy for someone who stumbles across this word and can not find a definiton. It is not a protologism, it has been seen before." If Google results are any indication, no one will need worry about stumbling across this word, and it HASN'T been seen before. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evan makes a valid point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwthwr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, totally devoid of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - if the word is "not present anywhere on the internet, nor is it heard commonly in any English-speaking areas throughout the globe", then WP isn't the place to start your little meme. Dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Clear case of WP:DICT, no WP:RS. Just because you can build a word with greek/latin roots doesn't make it a word. Even if you can, it doesn't make it worthy of an article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax if ever I saw one. single purpose account (s). the creator, in fact all major contributors are probably the same person. Keeper | 76 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yup this is a hoax too, I wonder how many of these are on Wikipedia right now Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It has been here too long already. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this were a real word which could be verified and sourced, the article would still just be a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2007 (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.