Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomoeroticism


 * 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 -- JForget  23:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pomoeroticism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

More neologism shenanigans. Double-entendre input is most welcome here. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pomoeroticism gives 4 google hits, and does not establish notability in the article. Is not verifiable, fails WP:NOTE. --Amalthea (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologoism without any sources to back it up. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and before anyone asks about my new sig, it's a reference to Chowder. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not even a hint that the examples given are indeed referred to by that name outside that article. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 00:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N, though I suspect that the day may come when this gets more written up in journals and becomes notable. Though that day is not today. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Avoid neologisms "A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing."Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.