Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What The Googlies


 * 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. None of the criteria for speedy deletion quite apply, but with such a strong and obvious consensus WP:SNOW very much does. ~ mazca  talk 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What The Googlies

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

WP:NEO, WP:ONEDAY, WP:NOTSUITABLEFORWIKIPEDIAATALL Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't see what speedy criteria this could come under; it's neither nonsense nor vandalism.  Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Haven't found any sources that could even somewhat redeem the guideline deficiencies noted. I also can't think how this article could come under the speedy deletion criteria.Otumba (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. More proof, if any was needed, that we need a a speedy delete category for blatantly non-notable neologisms. (the blatant part being "phrase that was first created during a hectic IT team collaboration event on the 8th of July 2009.") Hairhorn (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Looks like nonsense to me, whether or not it formally meets the definitions of 'nonsense'. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So friggin' tempting to delete this as a G3, but it doesn't quite fit. I second Hairhorn on neologisms, because this is garbage. Delete, speedily if someone can find a good category for it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:ONEDAY, WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS and probably several other things as well. Alas it doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria that I can see - I think the best we can hope for is an early WP:SNOW closure. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-avowedly WP:MADEUP and violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Whoa! Was that a snowball that just rushed by? Cnilep (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP and WP:YOUVEGOTTOBESHITTINGME Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We definitely need that to not be a redlink. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (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.