- 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. —Kurykh 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism lacking "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" - Also, content is full or WP:OR Corpx 07:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic. Also, seems to be non-notable — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Harlowraman 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - While the subject and associated phenomenon are worth an article (forums aren't something obscure by now), it needs sources. If someone adds at least some reference and edits the article accordingly, keep, otherwise delete. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:38, 31 July 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.