- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bannin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research. AutomaticStrikeout 23:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO GILO A&E⇑ 00:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be either a neologism not in wide use or something made up in school one day. In any case, it is a dictionary definition with no indication of wider encyclopedic interest. Delete Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Absolutely zero evidence to show that this word has been used as slang for "hyper". Wikipedia is not a website for original and unreferenced thought. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 15 October 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.