Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci-phi

Sci-phi was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Neologism coined by an "as-yet unpublished" author. SWAdair | Talk 05:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Has little to no potential to grow if the supposed works in this subgenre don't exist yet in published form. --Slowking Man 09:13, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Andrewa 11:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• If you think about it, a lot of sci-fi probably falls under this definition, but, it's an unheard-of neologism, so Delete I say. TPK 11:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a good neologism or critical observation, and I hope its creator writes a serious article on the subject for one of the literary Science Fiction magazines. However, it does not seem to have currency. Geogre 12:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Google returns 4,100 hits, some of which deal with a record label of that name. Goobergunch 17:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism and simply unnecessary. Skyler 03:15, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality 00:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.