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. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baylife[edit]

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

Rejected double-PROD.
Rationale for deletion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and per WP:NOTNEO ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.") + no reliable sources to indicate notability of this term. (Urban Dictionary is not an acceptable source). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable neologism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. The lack of reliable sources is pretty telling, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism dicdef. Dricherby (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. →TSU ^tp* 04:43, 30 May 2012 (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.