Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godmoding

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. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Godmoding

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

Delete. Sources requested well over THREE YEARS AGO, and someone added another Wiki as a source? It doesn't matter, WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources whatsoever. Not even worth moving to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spelled "Godmodding" there are a few hits in Googleland, but they appear to be in urban dictionary or blog/chat contexts -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, notability. Would a redirect to God mode be appropriate? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NOT a dictionary. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and WP:NEO. Pcap ping 17:19, 23 February 2010 (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.