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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term or political movement. If this is a political group, it's an insignificant fringe one; as a term, I can't find any use of it in reliable sources. It only seems to be used as a pejorative by non-reliable ones.Robofish (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See also discussion for Avraham Shmulevich below.) Robofish (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This neologism does not appear in any reliable sources that would have showed in a Google News or Google Books search. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one broken source. Non-notable is a compliment. How about "unheard of"? Poliocretes (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism. Number 57 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous commenters—neologism with no basis in reliable sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:02, 29 December 2010 (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.