Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-hood


 * 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.  krimpet ✽  03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Super-hood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Never heard of this word before, likely a neologism Mr Senseless (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No real ghits and no entries on urbandictionary.com. Definately a neologism. Billscottbob (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete made up. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sourcing, dicdef, no assertion of notability for the phrase.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of significant use on the net and no references in the article. Alberon (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails the notability guideline (term has not been the subject of coverage in relibale independnet sources) and fails [WP:NEO]] (unsourced, and article is nothing more than an attempted dictionary definition). Wikipedia is not for things just made up one day. Euryalus (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. WP:NOT is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of this article's unsuitability for Wikipedia.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pileon snowball delete fails WP:NOT, WP:NEO, WP:OR, borderline CSD A1. Probably more too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 11 December 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.