Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lbictoabl


 * 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   speedy deleted by Spinningspark, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lbictoabl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism and/or made-up word

The article, which cites no sources, claims that Lbictoabl is in wide use. A Google search, however, turns up exactly two results, both of them in Wikipedia and both put there by the same editor. This article also has an older prod template from April 30, but there is no discussion of it on April 30 so I am re-nominating it today. betsythedevine (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Complete nonsense. Please also note other articles created by same user: Lbictoaebl, Lbicoablol. Quantpole (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:MADEUP, also the other articles/redirects mentioned by Quantpole. Drawn Some (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Betsythedevine, next time use WP:PROD for uncontroversial deletions :) ~EdGl   &#9733;  17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too bad there's not a CSD for this shit... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious neologism, and sounds fairly made up by the editor. JogCon (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I prodded it, primarily as a neologism (after cursory google search). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . . . however it has yet to be widely used. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL on the articles own admission fails WP:N. For an internet term, it is very strange that google knows of precisely zero occurences besides on Wikipedia.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  01:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note this talk page comment by the author I guess it should be deleted if you want which could be interpreted as an author request for speedy delete (G7).  Sp in ni ng  Spark  02:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:NEO Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, WP:NEO isn't speedy deletion criteria. See CSD. ~EdGl   &#9733;  13:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I wasn't implying it should have been speedy deleted with that rationale. I believe that it should now be deleted quickly because of that reason. And WP:RS, WP:N etc. But you can't really say "notability" for a phrase, which is where NEO roles in. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out nonetheless. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) True, but speedy G7 is valid in this case as the author requested deletion on the article talk page. I have just made it so.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Greg Tyler) Please see Per for correct usage of the word "per" :P ~EdGl   &#9733;  15:05, 2 May 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.