Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talibangelical

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. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talibangelical[edit]

Prodded, tag removed, tag restored. Bringing here as a contested deletion. NickelShoe 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adjective coined by Britain's The Guardian newspaper Admitted neologism. Bobby1011 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Green Giant 05:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment comments like that make me seriously wonder about the sincerity of comments at AfD. Delete per nom? The nomination was bringing from prod. I gave no reason to vote either way. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. Give a reason. I hate AfD. NickelShoe 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not offence Giant, but you should at least read what you're agreeing to. Bobby1011 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry for bothering to vote. What makes you think I didn't read what I am agreeing to? By bringing it to this page you (NickelShoe) are nominating it for deletion whther it's contested or not. Bobby1011, I note that you used Delete. as per nom. several times for example, the Retro Fusion nomination just above - should I assume you didn't read what you were agreeing to either? No offence, but don't insult my intelligence by making comments like that. Green Giant 05:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You're supposed to give a reason. It's not a vote, it's a discussion. "per nom" means for the same reasons as the nominator. I gave no reasons. NickelShoe 05:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In context, what he said was, delete because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. What you said was, delete because the prod was contested. You see the difference? NickelShoe 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even a neologism; it's just a Protologism, with all of 125 hits on Google. --Aaron 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Not even a neologism yet. At best transwiki to wikitionary, but I remain skeptical of its notability. psch e mp | talk 06:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism. I find one article in which it was used. Doesn't seem notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pre-neologism. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did put the first prod tag: I agree with deletion --Melaen 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I removed the prod tag, because I thought a move to Wiktionary might be appropriate, but I'm unsure even of that. Deco 10:47, 23 February 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.