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 speedily deleted under G7 by Fastily partway through the debate. NAC for cleanup reasons by —S MarshallTalk/Cont 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is based on a single comment made in the quoted paper and does not appear to have entered into science lexicon. It does not meet WP:GNG. As the article currently stands it is highly incorrect, although that can be removed by editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best this is a protoneologism, but I doubt it. Most likely it is Headlinese. Abductive (reasoning) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I personally ask myself is where this bug could have seen the movie and what convinced him develop this hon in eight years, when evolution needs thousands of years to do so. I think the whole effect we're talking about is highly doubtable and speculative. If you ask me the bug existed before the movie or the horn structure wasn't as unique as the developers have thought, but that's speculation ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term actually resurfaced in my mind a few weeks ago, and I realized the term hasn't been used once since the discovery of the beetle resembling Dim. Since it failed to become a useful phrase, I'd say there's no good reason to keep it. Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (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.