Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lol@souffs

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, obviously – no need to spin this out for a week. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol@souffs

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

Made up non-notable neologism. Only self-published sources. WP:MADEUP. Three editors' PROD-tags removed without explanation ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable neologism, lacks sources. Clearly WP:MADEUP. XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a search on Google for this topic and came back with a number of pages across different sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaguebot (talk • contribs) — Leaguebot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Indeed? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 09:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURINJOKEONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY (see the page ratings if you don't get it). If pointless bureaucracy must prevail, delete per it being a non notable neologism, as I stated in my original prod. Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google search shows 171,000 search results for LOL@souffs, I believe that is more then enough sources to keep this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.27 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, but kinda irrelevant if it did. pablo 16:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a slang repository. Brammers (talk/c) 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:MADEUP; unlikely to become a notable piece of slang outside the world of Sydney RL, and perhaps not even there. pablo 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban Dictionary might take it but not on Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Why does it not matter that it wont become an notable piece of slang outside of Sydney RL? Sydney Rugby League is still large and 171,000 google search results prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus.newberry (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Marcus.newberry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's part of rugby league culture these days. Most league fans recognise it. It's not made up - a rugby league forum of over 100000 members all recognise it at least. That's not just Sydney based people either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbleheadWater (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — BobbleheadWater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.