- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Google brings back lots of hits, but this mainly seems to be because it is the name of a blog. Of the non-blog hits many seem to have divergant meanings for the term. Artw 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep a stub on a significant issue that will be of growing interest to the Wiki community. Strange lame reason given for delete, are some of you even trying anymore?--Rhooker1236 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is far from lame. It is, in essence, that this is original research, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is one of the primary reasons for deleting articles, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If this is a "significant issue", then you should be able to cite sources on the subject of biosingularities. Please cite sources. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
Transwik to Wiktionary.There doesn't appear to be much more to say about it here without going into "crystal ball" territory. Kafziel 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This word is not used in running text anywhere, as far as I can see, and fails to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria with a resounding thud. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Changed my vote. Kafziel 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This word is not used in running text anywhere, as far as I can see, and fails to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria with a resounding thud. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The blog's author indicates that he/she coined the term. This is a neologism whose article facilitates linkspamming the blog. Unless the word can be shown to be in more widespread use, it should be deleted per WP:NEO.--Chaser T 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources describing the purported concept of a "biosingularity". This is original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO - whoa WilyD 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism (and multiply defined, with different meanings, at that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2006 (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.