- 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 Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bosing out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable neologism Nk.sheridan Talk 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contested prod. The only reference I can find is here which was created after the article. The article also appears to be a copyvio of the above link. Nk.sheridan Talk 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's irrelevant when the reference was created, and the reference is in fact a copyright violation of us, seeing as they haven't cited us as the source like they have to do under GFDL. Anyway, that's urban dictionary, which allows anyone to add definitions. I think it's likely that this article and that definition were created by the same person, Delete as non-notable neologism.--Serviam (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly move to wiktionary?--Ondra2 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.