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) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bifranchise[edit]

Bifranchise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While somewhat subtle (well, as far as these things go), this amounts to either a neologism, a "up and coming" "philosophical movement", or a somewhat clever means to promote the "founding company", one "Global Importex Access, LTD". Google returns exactly one result for "BiFranchise" as a single word, and as two words (or a hyphenated word) the vast majority (read: "all") of the results are utilizing the word in a different capacity. Bottom line: it's non-notable six ways from Sunday, Googlewhack or not. Badger Drink (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like spam to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Bkell (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it needs sources. The fact that it's a bit grammatically incorrect wouldn't stop business authors from using the term, but we need evidence that they have used it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 22 November 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.