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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gultush[edit]

Gultush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Pure neologism, fails WP:GNG Esquivalience ^t 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I'm not sure I'd accord this term even the lowly status of a neologism, as that assumes it is indeed a word. I'm fairly certain that if it is, it isn't English. Can't find any sources using this word. A small splattering of occurrences of the term within social media were found with a quick search, but that isn't a very high bar, as gibberish has a high rate of occurrence in forums like that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not a repository for poor quality definitions of slang terms. --Michig (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources presently. Basic search reveals nothing.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:42, 9 July 2015 (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.