Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poor Form


 * 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Form

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Form Continuum" and "form scale" don't come up as widely used (in this context) in gsearches. Eliminating these, we're only left with a dictdef. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Neologism. Even if there is such a phrase Wikipedia is not a dictionary Ryan Lupin  (talk/contribs) 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced neologism. --Alvestrand 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep- Well known phrase throughout the Sydney region, the nom has shown some poor form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotownbro (talk • contribs) 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any reference to prove that is nothing more than a neologism. -- Magioladitis 11:08, 29 September 2007 (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.