Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocacolonization (2nd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn with no !voting for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocacolonization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I would like to reopen debate. This term is a clear neologism that no source has been shown to use. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Withdrawn. --Loodog (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and condemn lazy nomination. According to a Google Scholar search which took less than ten seconds to execute and interpret, 79 academic sources use the term. Afd is not for WP:PROBLEMS. Skomorokh 14:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, make that 1,070 academic sources once "coca-colonization", "coca-colonisation" and "cocacolonisation" are included. Skomorokh 14:58, 5 April 2008 (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.