- 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) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Web 2.0 squared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable neologism. Failed prod. DCEdwards1966 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this fairly obvious neologism per WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Only one hit from Google. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a pretty blatant, and borderline promotional neologism with no evidence of widespread use or coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca t | c 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per mazca; looks like something the article's creator Mikek201 (talk · contribs) made up. Cliff smith talk 19:12, 13 September 2008 (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.