Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exocious
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 07:01, 8 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exocious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely coherent, unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MuffledThud (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and also per WP:NFT - article author is the inventor of the word. From WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sooner the better, obviously. wjematherbigissue 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per all above, Best, Darigan (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (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.