Deletion of Grillionaire

Comment: No assertion or evidence of |notability. No |sources. Fails EO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NEO)

Comment: Fails , a Google search brought up nothing relevent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Per |Neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as an unsourced and |unverified , see also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NEO||WP:NFT)

Comment: Its an irrelevant definition and its |Notability is lacking, it also fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NEO)

Comment: I would agree if the word were notable as a ficticious number, but there is no evidence that it is. Pointing to the Indefinite and fictitious large numbers article is just a way to skirt the |neologism rules
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as failing the policy on |attribution, and as such, failing both the primary criterion on |notability (as there are no sources to confirm the notability), as well as the guideline for EO|neologisms
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:N||WP:NEO)

Comment: I can't find anything on Google. In response to Talk:Grillionaire|the author's comments on the talk page: the domain "www.grillionaire.com" is for sale and therefore there is not actually such a site; Wikipedia is not "a source to people about words and their meanings," but rather an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not "racist about trends that are happening anyway," but does include |attributability as a core policy; and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day|Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)