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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazinto[edit]

~~Neologism that is not in wide use and even if it was,~~ Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, I can't find much usage of this term anywhere (look at this, for example) to make it notable enough for a transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My bad. I deleted both of the user's terms when I saw the date he'd cited at the bottom of each. I restored them after he'd convinced me they were terms in general use. I couldn't find any relevant Googles, but then again I'm not a programmer. I feel I should vote neutral leaning toward delete. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a neologism, but tech jargon. This has been around a long time, in reference to hardware as well as software. As one who works in the aerospace industry, I have used "gazintas" and "gazouttas" for many years. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It should still go on dicdef grounds, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every run-together contraction doesn't need its own dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDICDEF, anyone? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:45, 16 February 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.