Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil good


 * 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 both per WP:SNOW as WP:NFT. I have a very bad philling about them ... Daniel Case 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Phil good

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologisms with no references (WP:Neologism, WP:V); just a self-referential walled garden. Prod contested. MarašmusïneTalk 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete I tried to think of why it should stay or what the page was really about and I just got a headache instead. If it is short for philip the good isn't it enough to just make a mention on the page for him? If not, I don't see it belonging anywhere else. NobutoraTakeda 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and as the expressions are self-confessed restricted to a corner of Michigan, not notable either. --Malcolmxl5 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like something created in school one day, no reliable sources and unable to find anything to back the terms existence. Davewild 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No references, unattributed and (after Google searches) likely unattributable. At best, both expressions fail WP:NEO and WP:ATT. -- Charlene 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not for things made up ... someplace, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No references, unattributed and likely unattributable. At best, both expressions fail WP:NEO --SECisek 20:49, 17 July 2007 (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.