- 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Webaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, no references or sources to substantiate any usage anywhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn neologism. Nakon 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, unsourced neologism; considering it's an Internet neologism, less than 1000 Ghits casts serious doubts on it's usage or availability of reliable sources. nneonneo talk 04:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 04:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sufficient notability has not been established. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable neologism.--Berig (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though I like the word. :) Use of the word has not, however, been established, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:NEO. PeterSymonds | talk 10:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism. Google doesn't reveal any reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 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.