Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JOL


 * 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.--SB | T 10:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

JOL
Neologism, and while I find Adam Carolla funny, not everything he comes up with needs to be an article in Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 20:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not, that's the point of Wikipedia is to keep track of new words, abrevs and definitions!JuggernautXUG 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually per WP:NEO no it's not. Wildthing61476 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somehow I knew this was going to be a contested prod. -- Merope Talk 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism, funny though. Recury 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Accurizer 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism (or should that be neolojism). ...  disco spinster   talk  23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why all the Adam Carolla hateing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuggernautXUG (talk • contribs)
 * Comment If you read all of the comment, no one hates Adam Carolla. I personally find him funny, but as I said in my nom, and the other editors here have said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wildthing61476 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:34, 7 October 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.