Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloobing


 * 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.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cloobing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Contested prod; rationale was: "Dictionary-type definition of a non-notable neologism". Suggest deletion as an unreferenced neologism per WP:NEO/WP:NFT. Muchness (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I was the original prodder. Lady  of  Shalott  20:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Silliness. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Life of Riley, pure silliness. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a neologism and it hasn't really taken off, and even if it did, it would still be a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unsourced; no assertion of notability; definition. (If the first two of these points are addressed, I'll change my non-vote to transwiki.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and propose to close per WP:SNOW Wikipedia is not a place for non-standard English. --I dream of horses (T) @ 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete cloobing does not exist right? Well if it does the article needs a source to prove it Venustas 12 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2009 (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.