- 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. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vossed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another unreferenced neologism. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Classic case of a neologism. No evidence this has widespread use. Jujutacular T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Pure vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think it's quite blatant enough to fall under G3 (pure vandalism), but it definitely comes under WP:NEO. Maybe even WP:MADEUP, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a Neologism. December21st2012Freak (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2009 (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.