- 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 speedy delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As the prod put it, Wikipedia is not a jargon dictionary. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a dictionary or place for jargon. Cindamuse (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms. Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: This could easily have been speedied under g3.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Far too trivial, not notable enough (failing WP:N) and plain jargon that should be put in a dictionary. RoryReloaded 10:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. –Grondemar 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (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.