Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physistical

: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 delete as a blatant hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[Physistical]]=

:{{la|Physistical}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Physistical}})

This appears to be a term made up during a boring Physics class. As the article says "there is a lack of media and cultural references to it". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete – Non-notable, no sources, and Wikipedia isn't for dictionary entries anyway. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Delete

A boring physics class? Funny, almost abusive. Regardless, I fail to understand the idea to remove this page? I have received and email and letter from the "Oxford University Press" "Oxford Dictionaries" and "Scottish Qualifications Authority" today regarding its authenticity and creation, 12th January 2012, no wonder there is no use of it. If "In Popular Culture" section is unacceptable it can be removed. This article must continue. I would have to verify it with the senders, but could post a PDF of a letter, email and future article from the Oxford Dicionaries and University Press regarding its introduction to society and the language? PhysicsDude21 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I deleted Wiktionary:physistical as when I tried to find evidence of use, there was none. And of course if it existed it would be correct for Wiktionary, in any event, even if it were correct it should be deleted here as off-topic, but in fact it's off-topic and made-up. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I tried to save a comment as the article was deleted - I don't believe this is necessarily a hoax, but a new user who likely doesn't understand sourcing and notability requirements. Support deletion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2012 (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.