Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheetle

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICTDEF of non-notable WP:NEO; only ref is an online slang dictionary that does not provide any WP:RS evidence of its actual notability. Only other g-hits are to urbandictionary.com (a user-contributed compilation) and others that are similarly non-reliable or that cite these non-reliables, or blog/bulletin-board postings that use it. Need actual articles about it, not anecdotal cites of use. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, Google shows no evidence of this even being a real word. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not there yet. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Peacock (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Common word around campus. 32.142.148.192 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. However, in principle, if someone really cares about this subject, they could try adding a section on "Cheeto fingers" to either Cheetos or Cheese puffs and redirecting "cheetle" there. There have to be reliable sources about this phenomenon out there, right?--Chris Johnson (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary's List of protologisms. Firstly this is a dicdef, and so doesn't belong on Wikipedia but on Wiktionary. Secondly, it does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion for the main namespace. However it does fill a lexical gap and is thus suitable for the list of protologisms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Wikipedia. There should not be an article for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this recently coined slang should be an exception.--Fartherred (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not think I meant the contributor intended abuse. Some articles just do not belong in Wikipedia regardless of how helpful the intentions of the contributor were.--Fartherred (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if it was notable, it's more-or-less a WP:DICDEF, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (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.