- 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. Denelson83 07:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism; delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- yep delete per nom -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree. encephalon 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Private slang. A couple of dudes have come up with a slang term. That's not very unusual. Geogre 13:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though it's far from private slang. The term is probably one of the most well-known words to arise from Magic: The Gathering and has moved into common use for most trading card games in one contect or another. Still, dicdef's for neologisms don't belong on Wikipedia, at least not in a seperate article like this. Nezu Chiza 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't private slang; it's a common, if somewhat obvious, term among M:tG players. That said, WP is not a dictionary, and there's no way this could be anything but a dictdef. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Carina22 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. *drew 14:20, 16 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.