- 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 snowball delete. Sr13 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism and Original Research. Article has been tagged for nearly a year for lack of sources for this neologism, but none have been added. Masaruemoto 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nom has it right, not really well sourced. Besides, while they got Voyager, they forgot the rest of Star Trek. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable neologism, and probably original research. --Haemo 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's non-notable, unsourced, and most likely to be original research. Acalamari 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No support stating that this is a valid name for any specific phenomana in film or TV. Slavlin 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, one year too long as it is. RFerreira 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR, WP:NEO. There should be an article for plot wheel (see Edgar Wallace), though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn neologism. Lankiveil 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, neologism/OR. JJL 11:58, 16 May 2007 (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.