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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, possibly made up on the spot RHBTalk - Edits 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteration: Article cites no sources; according to this website it was coined recently, and does not seem to be in widespread use. If I see other sources to the contrary I may change my position, but it's up to the article's editors to provide these. ◄Zahakiel► 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, but it does show up in a web search from multiple sites. The article belongs to a dictionary if it belongs anywhere. Saligron 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a perfect case for WP:NEO. Walton monarchist89 17:40, 30 January 2007 (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.