Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAIBTYBILP


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

MAIBTYBILP
Contested prod. Neologism. Asserts its own lack of notability and verifiability. Contains some original research (over-analyzes its subject), though that's actually the least of its concerns. Morgan Wick 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Creator has counterarguments at Talk:MAIBTYBILP. Morgan Wick 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

- 	*Delete as per nom. Hmmm, any chance of WP:SNOW? Bwithh 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Is a rarely-found acronym" Don't you love it when the author asserts non-notability for you? Fan-1967 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the Prod-er, I support nomination - not notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm the prodder. You only prod2'd it to endorse my prod. Morgan Wick 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously non-notable neologism. Total lack of reliable sources shows this is inherently unverifiable. Gwernol 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - wouldn't it be cool if, like, we made up an acronym that pretty much stands for only itself? Wikipedia is not for things thought up while sitting around a bong one day. -- H·G (words/works) 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Internet_Slang. I guess it doesn't need its own article, but I believe that it deserves its own section.  I didn't make this up, I can't prove it, and it's not very notable, but it's real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaymus22 (talk • contribs)
 * Shaymus22, you budding editor you, allow me to introduce you to the joys and wonder of Urban Dictionary. Go on, knock yourself out!! Bwithh 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, supported by some quotes from the article:
 * "M.A.I.B.T.Y.B.I.L.P. Is a rarely-found acronym" - Not notable, and dictionary entry
 * "It is new, so new that it cannot be found on Google" - so not only not notable, but a recientism at that.
 * "farthest corners of Internet communities that deviate away from the mainstream public focus" - Definately non-notable
 * ~ LinaMishima 03:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NFT springs to mind, too. Smells of a small couple of irc channels only using something, so... Not for your school/office/club's latest in-joke applies. LinaMishima 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please speedy delete A7. It asserts its own non-notability!  --ColourBurst 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly WP:CSD:A7 does not spply to neologisms. Gwernol 11:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, no merge into Internet slang, unverifiable, WP:NFT and WP:NEO. -- Kinu t /c  05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as is already said, the article makes the case for why it should go. Nuttah68 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ooh, a band wagon... Asserts own non notability. GeorgeBills 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Is a rarely-found acronym used in IRC chatrooms" ... no need to read any further. Sandstein 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: In all likelihood this article was created simply to create a new acronym, rather than to report on one. It lacks any and all sources to the point where it is rediculous and is, at best, nothing but a very localized in-joke amongst a group of maybe five or six guys with beards. -Dave 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, non-verifiable and the Internet slang page needs much work as it is. Yamaguchi先生 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - perhaps you can merge, if you find a source. Sorry, this is an encyclopaedia, even though some of the approved articles here do not belong in one. --nkayesmith 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "rarely used" - practically begging to be deleted, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 9 August 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.