Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1019 cool


 * 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. Chetblong T C 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1019 cool

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. --Pmedema (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced nonsense. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism that seems to have been madeup very recently and is only known by a very small group of people. Never asserts notability. Doc Strange (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete Fits "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)" to a T Not G1 material, but definately nonsense, unsourced, and without context. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The text isn't unsalvageably incoherent. That would something in the realm of "sdsdfsadfsfsgdftgadf". Icestorm815  •  Talk  17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, I sometimes inadvertently strech the limits of G1 in cases that are uncontroversial, but G1 is very specific, and if the page doesn't meet those guidelines, there is no substitue for forming consensus. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exterminate. Out of context rubbish. Red  Zion X 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up one day at school. Aramgar (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP and WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP Yeah this page doesn't have no credible sources or much of a page at all but its slowly starting out...The word means a lot to us people that live in richmond and is a type new vocabulary we use...I thinks its notable to put on wikipedia to show people what it means...If this word be taken off...Then we should look at the other words wikipedia has on their site like bootylicious...that to me is a nonsense word more than 1019 cool.....
 * Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a page about the word bootylicious. It has an article about a notable song with that title. If there were a notable song called 1019 cool we could have an article about that. As there isn't, we can't Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay but why is there a page about a notable song yeah some people might think its a good song and it was notable but what about the some of us that dont...some people dont care if it was a notable song...so are you saying that this word has to be notable???? My point is if i dont think the song is notable enough i can put it up for deletion because if it is not notable then its no nonsense...and when it is put up for deletion then and i will let this page go in peace as well!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.168.169 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying exactly that. Notability is the criteria that we use to determine whether an article is allowed. Anything else would be a nonsense (are we to not have articles on "bad" things?). You could, of course, put an article about a song that you don't like up for deletion. However, notability isn't a matter of opinion. Wikipedia has guidelines which define notability, and the song qualifies. Any move to delete it would be doomed to failure. Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- Simple case of WP:NEO. Belongs on Urban Dictionary, not wikipedia. Rigby27   Talk  14:32, 25 February 2008 (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.