Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.I.P.O.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.I.P.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced neologism, no evidence that it is widely used, reported on, ... WP:NEO says it all, basically. And it fails WP:V as well, of course. Fram (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable, belongs in dictionary not hereJasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much the stereotypical neologism article: term invented just this year, not in widespread use, no sources. Even a dictionary wouldn't accept this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NEO - I would say this article should P.I.P.O, no ? --Triwbe (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism.--Berig (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 03:49, 1 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.