Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimmfold


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Grimmfold
Non notable neologism (hoax?): Grimmfold cheese gives no Google hits, Grimmfold alone gives 56 hits Fram 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable, and otherwise non-notable neologism. —  The KMan  talk 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if genuine (which I doubt), well below the WP:NEO threshold. Tevildo 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Matticus78 21:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; obvious case. ~ PseudoSudo 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP. How is google even considered a viable resource or confirmation of this?  If wikipedia can recognize such a phenomenon as "BLING BLING" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling, then surely there may be room for The Grimmfold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brewmasterj (talk • contribs).
 * Please provide references about the usage of "grimmfold" in this context, if any. —  The KMan  talk 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference is that every kid in the English- (or their semblance of English ;) )-speaking world is using that term; obnoxious as it may be it's entered the common parlance. Even toy manufacturers are capitalising on this (with "Bling" editions of fashion dolls, etc). And where Google enters the equation is a quick way of checking verifiability: if this term is being used a lot, a lot of people will have written about it, and it will appear a lot on the internet. If nobody can verify the information, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Matticus78 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google isn't the definitive guide to notability, but if I can't find it on Google, it is up to you or ther defenders of the article that it is nevertheless notable, by providing other verifiable sources. Mentioning on the talk page of Grimmfold a book that is equally absent on Google doesn't help your case. Fram 07:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

--User:BrewmasterJ
 * Userfy. Please allow further time to establish the relevance of contribution.
 * Delete per Tevildo; either a hoax or a non-notable neologism and certainly not encyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 30 June 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.