- 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 — Caknuck (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary or publisher of original thought, no reliable sources (the Merriam-Webster is a public-editable website, thus failing WP:RS) and 24 google hits, first one is wikipedia. The remainder are wikipedia sub-pages, web fora, and other inapplicable sources. No evidence from google that this term has any real usage. WLU 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable protologism with no evidence of real use. I doubt anyone discusses this topic enough for it to even need a word of its own? -- Mithent 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. de Bivort 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only 46 google hits. Not notable. Think outside the box 12:55, 16 November 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.