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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 08:15Z

Jesusry[edit]

Jesusry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested proposed deletion. Original prod reason: NN neologism. 17 Google hits for "Jesusry". – Gurch 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per noms ghits. Neologism dict def. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IslaySolomon. Also unverifiable. Accurizer 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. --- RockMFR 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:NEO, if anything transwiki. -- Chris is me 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:NOT and WP:NEO.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TheRingess 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• transwikify a good and useful new term, suitable for wiktionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. Wiktionary does not accept protologisms, which this is. Uncle G 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IslaySolomon.--Dakota 06:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like an entry straight out of dictionary.com or something and we know that is WP:NOT. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Sharkface217 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 02:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I say move to wiktion... - oh crap, nevermind, they won't take it. Delete. :P Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DAFT? --Masamage 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Simonkoldyk 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (To the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers") Delete per comments above, delete delee-eete, etc... WMMartin 17:36, 5 December 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.