Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limh

: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. — Aitias // discussion 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Limh]]=

:{{la|Limh}} ([{{fullurl:Limh|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limh}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable neologism - even article states that it was "created in 2009"! Nancy ^talk 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination and WP:MADEUP. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Pyrrhus16 18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not a hoax (see [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LIMH&defid=2939060], [http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/LIMH]). But it is just a definition of what Wiktionary cautiously accepts as a neologism. Wikipedia generally does not like neologisms. Maybe, if it survives, it could warrant an entry in Wiktionary. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.