Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugarpic

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sugarpic

Looks like neologism. After reading it, you would think you would find some good references for it on Google, but there currently isn't one. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. — Asbestos | Talk 22:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We've just gotta make a name for every last bloody thing we do, don't we? SugarDelete. --Asriel86 23:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Usually people aim to get their protologisms into the dictionary and miss, hitting the encyclopaedia instead. For a change, this one hit both, and is up for deletion in both. There can be no encyclopaedia article about sugarpics simply because there's no such word. Delete. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.