Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjecturising

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. – Robert 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecturising

Neologism. Claims that the word was "officially" introduced into the English language, but this is unverifiable... and I don't believe there exists any officiating body who could do such a thing. Delete. –Sommers ^(Talk) 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it's also been tagged as nonsense but I don't think it quite qualifies, which is why I've listed it here. –Sommers ^(Talk) 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Too neologistic. I have a found a few references of this on a website, but very very few, and hardly enough to qualify as an article. J.J.Sagnella
• Delete It's not a good strategery to let neologasms in the door. Ruby 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I hereby officially strike this word from the English lexicon as redundant. Smerdis of Tlön 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism, and yes, redundant. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:20Z

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.