Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickly get there

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. Angr (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clickly get there

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

Neologism invented today - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickly from same editor. Totally non-notable. PamD 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete per the snowball clause. Cursory Googling turns up nothing but Wikipedia articles. This is, quite possibly, the most tremendously non-notable topic I have ever seen get a Wikipedia article. CtP (t • c) 00:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:ONEDAY. Past drafts of the article make it clear that this is a new coinage that somebody decided to put on Wikipedia. There's no evidence it's widely used. The phrase has 3 google hits, all from this online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but sometimes shouldn't. Come back in a few years if people are still saying it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Depending on how closely this follows the text from the now-deleted clickly, G4 might be an option, but really, the criteria for speedy deletion aren't the issue here. This is, by the creator's admission, a neologism invented by the article creator in the extremely recent past, and already deleted (speedily) under another name. This one should go equally quickly, and a firm word may need to be had to prevent additional recurrences. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't think of an obvious speedy (It has context, and it's not about an individual, animal, organization, web content or musical recording) but completely unsourced one line neologism. Unsalvageable. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clickly delete this per WP:MADEUP --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (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.