- 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. WjBscribe 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced original research about a neologism with only 1100 google hits (even after almost 1 year of article creation.) Abu badali (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A5 (transwiki), since the article has been put on Wiktionary already per a tag on the article. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per Dennithe2. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending expansion. I think there is possibly much wider use of this concept, and it impinges on questions of scientific method. If I write several different articles about the effect of global warming by the year 2010, all with different numbers, and manage to get them published in various obscure places, i can then write a single article in 2010 referring to the one that happened to be right, and showing how close I came. DGG 05:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unfortunately the scientific method also refers to the journal used. So obscure magazines are entirely ignored by the scientific community, although even there we might find valid articles. More to the point, if the scientific method really works you are unable to write the same article with changing numbers and still get it published.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per too much OR and speculation. the_undertow talk 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Delete - Per Dennis The Tiger.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced dictdef of a neologism. Strong delete unless useful, reliable sources are cited that clearly establish use widespread enough to imply notability. DES (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced neologism and transwikied anyway. Delete --Alksub 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:35, 16 April 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.