Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi winning

:{{la|Bi winning}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Bi winning}})

Neologism lacking evidence of extensive use or importance. ttonyb (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete-- per nom. The only source gives twenty or so of these Charlie Sheen quotes- we can't make them all into articles. Perhaps it could be slipped into the Charlie Sheen article, but I don't really think that's necessary. --E♴ (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, with salt if necessary- There as absolutely nothing at all notable about this phrase. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete hard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bi delete. I think "Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day" could apply here too. No real meaning either.SPNic (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete-- WP:NAD and "not for stuff made up one day by Charlie Sheen" both seem to apply here. Chris the speller (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously, although this is more a case of WP:NEO and WP:GNG than WP:ONEDAY. Feezo (Talk) 01:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, we don't need to breath life into one-off Sheenisms. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.