Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncebackability

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 of the debate was Delete. android79 15:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dicdef Just zis Guy, you know? 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bouncebackability is neologism" DELETE already tranwikied to wiktionary people Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dictdef at best --Reflex Reaction 20:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. Qwghlm 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - terrible English and a dicdef to boot. --MacRusgail 19:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete If "bouncebackability" can make it into the dictionary, it deserves a place in an encyclopedia. In the UK, where I live, it has become accepted terminology in the vast footballing community. --88.109.55.244 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Kiand 17:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep - Word is as common in Great Britain as Pie is in America! The Word is also in the Dictionary. If this is deleted there is a BIG problem in Wikipedia. Plus, you know i'm a good user (check my contribs), so i wont make this stuff up. - Bwfc 20:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wiktionary, if they take it. Alphax ^τεχ 18:34, 24 October 2005 (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.