Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boctaoe

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--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boctaoe

NN neologism coined Jan 2006 J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Only 173 Googles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as uncommon neologism. Sycthos^Talk 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -- Chris 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. May be notable in a few months or years' time but not now. WikiFanatic 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Meekohi 03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 10:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Meekohi, please justify your vote to Speedy Delete Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Banes 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per se. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: a tad too dictionary-esque. I don't like to use the phrase non-notable but I think it may apply here. GoldenTie 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need to use it. As Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day explains, our core official policies (in particular Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:No original research) exclude protologisms and neologisms without having to involve notability. Uncle G 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. How could it have "quickly caught on" if the term is only two weeks old? James084 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete it! I needed to search Wikipedia to find what the word meant, and the term was here for me. There's no need to delete something just because it's a little archaic (for now).

<NO DELETION> This word DID catch on real quick. It started on the Daily Dilbert blog, and now it's a widespread word, used mainly by bloggers, but it's also been included in the urban dictionary. "LOL" has a link at wikipedia, why not 'boctaoe' ?

• • Comment: Do you have a reliable source that you could cite to prove this? Stifle 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If EOE wasn't a dab page we could've redirected, but there's nothing currently to redirect to. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 January 2006 (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.