- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protologism with zero Google hits (as per User:Matticus78). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism fails WP:NEO alphaChimp laudare 22:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though I myself have fallen victim to the "wikibyss" on a number of occasions, it's not an established term for the concept. It doesn't even have an entry on Urban Dictionary, which has many non-notable neologisms, but if a neologism isn't listed there, it is obviously non-notable. If it ever "catches on," I think a mere mention in the Wikiholics article would suffice. ---Thorne N. Melcher
- We don't actually have such an article. That's party the cause of the problem here. Uncle G 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author (apparently DaraghM (talk · contribs) not logged in) admits on Talk:Wikibyss that xe coined a novel term for a never-before-documented concept right here in Wikipedia. This article is original research by its author's own admission. Delete. Uncle G 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although I may start propogating the term now that I have one. Just as soon as I finish reading up on......... -- nae'blis 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Exact same attitude as Nai'blis. JoshuaZ 18:56, 2 August 2006 (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.