Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlsnberry


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Girlsnberry

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a neologism. Denelson83  05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even sports catologs get to make up words (and then get them on Wikipedia).  Someguy1221 05:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think due to it's external links, examples of the color in the chart, and informaiton presented it should be given a small chance. WEAK chance. Ref it up, and I agree with the neologism reference. Carter | Talk to me 08:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, that includes companies deciding to invent names for colours. If reliable independent coverage is provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: silly neologism 'made up one day in school'. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete. Silly as pointed out, but am I the only one who laughed? BPMullins | Talk 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually there are scores of silly names for obscure in-between colors and there are institutes that keep track of them for manufacturers and publishers as well as predict which ones will be popular in the next year or so. This, however, does not appear to be one of them. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sheesh. JJL 01:46, 15 October 2007 (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.