Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandarific

Pandarific was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to delete

Neologism. It could perhaps be deleted for speedy, but it's borderline, so I thought I'd bring it here. - Vague | Rant 23:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why can't "John the Baptist" use his smarts for something really useful? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd call it speedyable, but since it was vfd'd, I suppose that means we should vote. :-) Delete this nonsensical neologism. Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense. Academic Challenger 23:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, let's vote. Mine's Delete. Pandas are cool, yes, but until they become a "standard" of coolness equal to say, the Fonz, or mirror shades, this word doesn't mean anything. Inky 01:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Possible BJAODN candidate, but we probably shouldn't panda to the author's lust for fame. Or as Ogden Nash said, I love the giant baby panda, I'd welcome one on my verandah. Andrewa 01:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-pandarific article. --LeeHunter 03:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Andrewa beat me to the punch of pointing out that Pandarus is not a lovable Panda, and "pandarific" sure reminds me more of pimps than bears. Speedy delete candidate for nonsense under criterion #2. I don't think it's good enough for BJAODN. Geogre 03:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. DCEdwards1966 04:09, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --*drew 08:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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