Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N00BB00B00


 * 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.  Sango  123   03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

N00BB00B00
Delete a non-notable neologism with no evidence to show its widespread use or impact. Prod was removd without comment. Gwernol 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gwernol i find it highly offensive that you are removing this phrase that I spent time correcting. What do I have to do to keep it on? Just because you havent heard of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, what is the prod? that was supposdly removed? Im fairly aggitated after this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrStrangeMan (talk • contribs).

DrStrangeMan 11:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing in this article convinces me it's notable and not something made up in school one day. Agent 86 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as a non-notable neologism. GassyGuy 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry DrStrangeMan, but this word is not notable enough for it to be included in a wikipedia article. Please continue contributing to wikipedia :-). DarthVad e r 11:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NNN, as mentioned above. PJM 11:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Impossible protologism. Words like "diss" get picked up.  Words that require special characters and formatting?  Uh.  No.  Geogre 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title alone is almost enough to delete it. J I P  | Talk 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. blue 520  12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JIP :P --Shizane 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a proto/neologism.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. -- Xyra  e  l  T 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * D3L3T3 NawlinWiki 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Zoz (t) 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - pile-on deletionism. - Richardcavell 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * D3L3T3 p3r n0m. --Arnzy (whats up?)  23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What you guys said. ViceroyInterus 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete signed articles are seldom worthwhile, and this is no exception. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, non-notable neologism, horribly-written article. --Coredesat 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism, I can't verify sources. Cheers.  --Starionwolf 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails standards at WP:NEO. Comment added to link to standards, so that the creator can learn, not because the outcome is in question.  GRBerry 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NEO. --Strothra 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the creator can provide sources to show where this is used. Peterkingiron 21:48, 17 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.