Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fedsurrection

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fedsurrection

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

New term lacking sourced specific definition not likely to "stick". Meatsgains^(talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced neologism. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no sources, neologism, fails to assert importance/reason for notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article has no sources and needs to be better developed. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. This term doesn't appear to be in popular use from what I'm personally seeing in social media. Nothing notable about this. Love of Corey (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced neologism not in popular use. --Kbabej (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom. Unsourced orphan with no indication of notability. bop34 • talk • contribs 14:28, 13 January 2022 (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.