Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicky satchmo


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bicky satchmo
Neologism/slang from a small circle. FreplySpang (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Tonywalton | Talk 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless neologism dab page. Roy  boy cr ash  fan   00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely worthless.  Postdlf 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero Ghits. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day - Fan1967 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NFT. Jude (talk,contribs) 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Staxringold 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It made me laugh, but too obscure for an entry. Not even listed in Urbandictionary.com Wiederaufbau 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sophomoric trash. Moe Aboulkheir 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Uncylcopediedic and makes no sense. The Republican 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seeing this die makes me Bicky Satchmo. Accurizer 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Apollo58
 * Delete per all above, and put this out of its misery per WP:SNOW. -- Kinu t /c  08:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Samir ∙ T   C  08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Localzuk (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Adbarnhart 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-03-10 04:36Z 
 * Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2006 (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.