Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Form of Deluxe


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 05:59Z 

The New Form of Deluxe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Neologism, trying to get a new word/usage to catch on. FreplySpang 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Cavenba 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Aurthors admit it is a neo and made up in school one day.--Dacium 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This belongs on UD, not Wiki. Electricbassguy 08:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok,Ok, I see what you all think about my article, but what do you think about the word.


 * Delete Future and uncited opinions and generally fails WP:NN and WP:NOT. Telly  addict  18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This should definitely have an article on WP ........... when it does "sweep the nation and possibly the world". I think WP:NEO and WP:NOR will suffice as reasons for deletion.  -- Black Falcon 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Deluxely... as a thing relly made up in school one day. SkierRMH 21:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Meets WP:MADEUP.
 * Delete. Sorry, kids, but this appears to be something you've just made up. This isn't acceptable under our standard guidelines. I feel this can be a Speedy. WMMartin 14:13, 26 February 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.