Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inwin

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. Sr13 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inwin

Inwin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable technology neologism. Article was prodded by me, but restored by a request to User:Edgar181. I can't see anything on Google to indicate that this term is in wide use, either as "inwin", "InWin" or "In-Win". Lankiveil 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETE I tried Inwin with NETCRAFT and Inner Window with NETCRAFT---the company that supposedly coined the term and couldn't find anything...Balloonman 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Balloonman. Nothing on Netcraft's site supports this.--Ispy1981 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. 'Nuff said. YechielMan 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, likely promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Hut 8.5 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if the term were notable, which it is not, the article text is hardly even a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. I know, I'm preaching to the choir. RFerreira 06:23, 12 June 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.