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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecession[edit]

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

Been sourceless for the 10 months since its creation, half of which it has been tagged as needing references. Googling only brings up ~300 hits, most of which are wikis/mirrors and none of which are remotely reliable. Delete as original research/unverifiable term. Wickethewok 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced, non-notable neologism (or nnn). The term seems to have originated in the wiki's linked in the article, and if not, I see no evidence that it has received any attention from independent sources. Charlie 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is based on a point of view that cannot be substantiated by any source. --Gavin Collins 11:40, 12 June 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.