Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.m.o.g.


 * 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 -- JForget  00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

S.m.o.g.

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism doesn't seem to have received the kind of coverage from reliable sources to write an encylopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete This has clearly become an attack page. Someone keeps posting peoples names on the page. [User:Ecoli0157|Ecoli0157]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not really worth saving.--Mblumber (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

are people homophobes around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddygotfingers (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails inclusion criteria. And no, the majority of us are not homophobes.  a s e nine  say what?  20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No, we're not, but this is a non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources that verify the subject. Rnb (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Save this one for the Webster Dictionary's year-end listing of new words, if it is truly a new expression. And the comment/question regarding perceived homophobia among the editors was not appropriate for this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope anyone who uses this term gets slapped hard, gay or not. Otherwise, unnotable and seems made up (especially from a user who has the title of that horrendous Tom Green bomb as their username).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable WP:NEO / not-a-dictionary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete idiotic. JuJube (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, falls afoul of our neologism notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Speedy Delete as attack page; csd template added. Most of the above comments refer to older versions of this article before it became an attack page. Merenta (talk)
 * Comment I removed the attack from the article. It was vandalism added by an anon. Declined the speedy. However, the issue may be moot as this appears to be headed for a snowball close.  Dloh  cierekim  13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no assertion of significance in the article. Contrarily, it states this is "new gay lingo." I find no examples on the web of this usage, beyond urban dictionary, which is not a reliable, verifiable source. All that said, it would still be no more than a not notableneologism or dicdef. Dloh  cierekim  18:04, 12 May 2008 (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.