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 transwiki. Daniel 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgetbahn[edit]

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

This fails on two counts: first, it is a neologism; second it is a dictionary definition. I tried to find credible references for it, but found only a few newspaper editorials of an obviously polemical kind, nothing we could use for an authoritative definition. It is not so widespread as to be able to define it form a consensus of common usage, either. Only a few hundred Googles, of which Wikipedia is the top one (always a bad sign). Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Alameda Sun and Rail Professional too. It only matters that these secondary sources are more reliable than WP. Dhaluza 23:42, 23 July 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.