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 deleted per the below and WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptoskank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research unsupported by citation; dictionary definition Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To the author: find a better outlet for your troubles with women. Deltabeignet 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. Also (if this is removed) remove the entry from the category. meshach 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: google yields only one hit, which is linked to this one. I don;t think it even qulaifies as a neologism...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - nonsense --Orange Mike 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it violates WP:NEO, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NFT, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Did I miss anything? -- Black Falcon 09:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.