- 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. --Coredesat 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a neologism, as a Google search reveals only fifty results outside Wikipedia. Additionally, the way the article is written appears to indicate it is copied from another source. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like it was created by the creator of the concept, as seen here. --humblefool® 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per above. Also, have a look at the creator's userpage - single-purpose account. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NEO and WP:OR. Article has been published by the original author Pedro Andrade/Pandrade here. Caknuck 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Neologism and apparent original research. Xdenizen 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NEO, WP:OR. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not a commonly used term and the article seems to be OR. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism, personal essay. JIP | Talk 12:47, 6 November 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.