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.
Neologism, no relevant google hits. Reeks of nonsense/prank. AecisMr. Mojo risin' 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Could be verifiable outside of Google; see Scout Hall as an example. Article needs more context, though. TheProject 05:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing here to build on. Chick Bowen 14:47, 11 May 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.
