Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch blindfold

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 of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\^talk 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch blindfold

This is a neologism. Though not invented by the author for WP, it was invented (or preserved) only by Viz website Profanisaurus. Thus, this is a non-notable neologism.Obina 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Go for it! 12:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Banes 12:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Obina says. Royer's Profanisaurus is not a reliable source and even if it was this would be a slang dictdef (and WP:ISNOT a slang dictionary). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 18:54, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
Comment reading the article I cant help wondering....how would you do that!?! Jcuk 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schlockading 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism.--Dakota ~ ε 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODNed. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:39, 8 January 2006 (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.