- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Boofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism. Contested PROD. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism. This appears to be a word invented and used by a very small number of people and a google search does not turn up any references in the media.--TeraRose (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. I can't find any references in reliable sources to this word being used in the manner described in the article. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NEO. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We are not a dictionary, and this isn't even notable. PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:09, 1 June 2011 (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.