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 --JForget 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohammed[edit]

Bohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Originally Prod tagged. Essentially a neologism with no notability. WP:NEO. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - just a neologism with no established notability. - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Witty Lama 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- As noted above. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article was created today, shouldn't we wait a while first?--Agha Nader (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was created yesterday. However, that's not the point. Neologisms don't meet the criteria for WP:CSD, and so I prod nominated it. The author removed the template - which is tantamount to saying "it is notable, here is why" - except the why never came, which is why it's now here at AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, per nom. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. The article doesn't seem to be going anywhere and is in violation of WP:NEO.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2008 (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.