Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bawesome

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. Yes, Lady, it's WP:SNOWing heavily. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bawesome

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO, and looks like something that should be in Urban Dictionary rather than Wikipedia. Clearly not an appropriate page, but doesn't appear to fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Let's get this deleted per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as CSD nominator (which was inappropriate). FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see where it's in use but usage does not mean notability per WP:NEO. There are no sources that I could find that would be considered reliable sources that cover the origin and usage of bawesome. This just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a dictionary. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This probably doesn't even belong in Wikitionary. (Also, on a related note, anyone else think we ought to make these sorts of pages into a Speedy Delete category? I certainly do; would save us a lot of unnecessary discussion. After all, there are only a few cases where this sort of page is notable, like w00t.) This definitely meets criteria for a WP:SNOW deletion. Zaldax (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there have been several discussions about whether to make a speedy deletion criteria for neologisms. The problem is that it's very hard to think of a wording that is objective and that wouldn't result in any false positives. Have a read of the guidelines at WT:CSD and search through the archives if you're interested. And if you do think of a good potential criterion, propose it on WT:CSD and it might just make it into policy. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition, take your pick. Urban Dictionary is thattaway...---> Carrite (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculous WP:DICDEF entry of a protologism probably made up on the spot by the article creator. Is it snowing yet? LadyofShalott 18:10, 8 August 2012 (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.