Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasi-gummi

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. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-gummi

Originally speedy-deleted as a neologism, undeleted at DRV for further scrutiny under the full deletion process. No vote at present. -R. fiend 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sounds very much to me like original research. Bobby1011 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, I was eating Dots back in my day long before these newfangled gummi bears came out --Ruby 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. There are two references, one does not seem to contain the word "quasi-gummi" at all, and the other has it on the sidebar with similar terms "Contempo-Gummis" and "Classic Euro-Gummis", which I think can be safely said to not be commonly-used terms for what they describe either. Try walking into a store and asking for "contempo-gummis" and see what they say. Google hits number about 180 but all seem to be Wikipedia and its mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was unable to verify this usage at DRV, and still can't. Guy 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Any article that uses the word gummiology is either a hoax or made up in school one day or both. -- Krash (Talk) 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The "sources" provided and searches don't convince me that this is more than a non-notable neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I see no independent evidence of widespread use of this term. The newspaper article from the Internet Archive (in the external links) mentions many compound nouns derived from "gummi", ostensibly in an attempt to be cute or funny. Unless there is convincing evidence of significant usage outside of one article, delete this as hapax. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:56, 24 February 2006 (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.