- 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research essay. Neologism. Prod removed by author. My favorite quote? "Now, unfortunately for 'facts,' I’m not an anthropologist, and unfortunately I don’t like doing research either, so I made that whole last part about the evolution of currency up." That pretty much screams WP:OR and WP:V, doesn't it? -- Merope 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It appears the author has deleted all the unsourceable, unencyclopedic parts mentioned above. Now all that's left is something that still fails WP:NEO and WP:V. --Kinu t/c 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, empty abstractions. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:Complete bollocks BTLizard 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can almost hear JzG girding up to write an essay about "blogger wibblings". ☺ Just redirect it to electronic money as e-currency already does. The alternative spelling is the only thing that I can verify. The current content is original research that hasn't even made it outside of its inventor's own web log. Uncle G 20:10, 4 September 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.