Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hizzey

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 speedy redirect to -izzle. WP:SNOW redir (non-admin closure) Wiggles _oinks ^waddles 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hizzey[edit]

WP:NFT neologism. Failed {{prod}} by sole author removal. Sole reference is bogus. I was tempted to Speedy this per WP:SNOW but thought otherwise. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is clearly a hoax. Colds7ream (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax. Should be speedied IMO. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) This is vandalism. Peacock (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't vandalism, and it's not a hoax, it's just a poorly written jokey article. The AFD should be allowed to run, at least until it snows. All that said, WP isn't a slang dictionary; the challenge during the AFD will be finding meaningful citations that can make a better fleshed-out article workable. Townlake (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but there's no need to be speedy about it. And like Townlake says, it's not vandalism. henrik•talk 17:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searching google brings up nothing but this so far: 1 (suggest you Ctrl+F Hizzey or look under Leo) the author amusingly enough doesn't know what it means either. If it is not a hoax it can be deleted under: WP:NOTDICDEF or if it is under: WP:HOAX, so it makes little difference whether it is or not Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, Hizzey is a term similar to Hello, used by many students and the article is currently awaiting sourcesHutchid1 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To -izzle, like hizzy is redirected. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd work for me. Townlake (talk) 18:59, 12 March 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.