- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.It is dictionary definition for a made up word. There is no reason to keep it. It has "no encyclopedic value" as it is nonnotable as an extremely little used word at best and original research/factually untrue at worst. I would transwiki it to Wiktionary but given that it's a neologism, that would be silly. The definition has been changed significantly by the creator of the page since its creation, showing that it is either completely contrived, or is so new as to have no stable definition and hence be a nonnotable current event not worthy of our time. This falls under the informally proposed speedy deletion category of Complete Bollocks, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poffenberger. WAvegetarian 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism / dicdef / vanity / nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. - ulayiti (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, and I'd back you on the extra tag.. - N (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:00, 11 November 2005 (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.