Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beanaby

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. jni 13:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beanaby[edit]

Article claims that Beanaby is a portmanteau of Beanie Baby, and on Feb 13 was tagged need-to-verify. Google turns up no hits for beanaby other than WP mirrors, and eBay has none for sale.

I think that redirect is inappropriate because the name is not in usage and could eventually be trademarked by somebody else. Sympleko 10:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. Samaritan 13:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty easy to make a shorter form of a common word (try a Google for "sgetti" for example). But that hardly qualifies it as a new word and certainly wouldn't be article-worthy even if widespread, which this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, non-notable. Quale 02:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.