Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamically Gendered

Dynamically Gendered was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Dynamically Gendered is not a term with any particular import or generally agreed-upon meaning that someone nonetheless "decided" to write about. A Google search turns up exactly one use of the term on the Internet. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. rhyax 03:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable or original research. Davodd 07:14, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nunh-huh, you really didn't need to edit in your VfD justification. At any rate, the original article was a neologism/jargon term. Geogre 12:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Didn't need to? True, but I was giving that little bit of extra service for the same price. It was that or stick a "disputed" on it, unless we have a template that says "This is a made-up term. It will exist here for a week before we delete it. Don't be misled (in the meantime) into believing anything written about it here." - Nunh-huh 07:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems to me Nunh-huh was merely being bold. What's the harm in it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * None. I was just leg pulling.  I thought the thing hadn't a leg to stand on, and Nunh-huh's addition pulled that one out, so I was just giving a yank to the third. Geogre 01:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...interesting imagery. - Nunh-huh 04:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, original research. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)