Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calzonian

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 of the debate was Delete. --Ezeu 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calzonian[edit]

First of all, this would be better for Wiktionary, since this is a definition, not an encyclopedic entry. Furthermore, it's not notable -- only 122 Google hits. Gadren 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary I think It is notable enough to be in the Wiktionary, but certainly not an article fit for Wikipedia.--Eyaw Nayr 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who put this here and I agree that it should probably should be in Wiktionary. I actually didn't know that existed or I would have put it there first. And just becuase it only has 122 google hits doesn't mean people don't say it. - Srexy 2 May 2006

Neoligism, so delete. Transwiki if necessary, but unless its more notable than the ghits suggest it seems borderline for wikitionary. Even if people do say it, we need some source to back the statement up. -- MarcoTolo 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this is worth putting on Wiktionary either. --Deville (Talk) 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 5 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.