Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally cactus

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally cactus
Non-notable neologism, and I'm willing to bet the guy who made it up is the one who made this article. Ketsy 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i dunno.
 * Unsigned comment by 129.44.212.147 (talk &middot; contributions)


 * Well that's helpful. Ketsy 21:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The dictionary is over there, people; and it will take "totally cactus" if you can demonstrate that the phrase is in widespread use.  (Hint: In actual use, it in fact means the opposite of the definition here.)  No transwiki.  The original author (who also wrote "i dunno" above) appears to be around to submit it to Wiktionary xemself, directly.  Delete. Uncle G 22:48, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 02:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity neologism. Gazpacho 10:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn v ngsm (testing out acronyms). -- Riffsyphon1024 10:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * In Australia, when something is cactus- its stuffed, this article is cactus, delete--nixie 09:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete! Totally cactus! -- Shauri 00:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Too neo-, not enough logos.  Alai 07:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.