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 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-relationship[edit]

Quasi-relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I prodded this new article, and the author deprodded it without making a significant change. I'm still not convinced that this article has any truth value whatsoever, so I'm placing it before you. YechielMan 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. "Quasi-relationship" is a dating term, if anything. This is lunch-table fodder. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Google "quasi-relationship", glance at the links, and you can readily see that people mean a great many things when they use that turn of phrase ... so far, however, the author's spin on it has yet to turn up. RGTraynor 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a good prod, it's a neologism, more or less. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is a bare-bones dictionary definition, even if the term was real. ◄Zahakiel► 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but if it's deleted just move it to my namespace, Wrongporch 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced neo and don't userfy... no reason to.--Isotope23 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not needed to create an article just because one have to have something to do. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. KnownTypes 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is completely silly, and not the normal usage of the term "quasi-relationship." --N Shar 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck out two comments by the same user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No content.--Sefringle 07:02, 24 February 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.