Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Context reflux

:{{la|Context reflux}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Context reflux}})

Note to closing admin: A duplicate copy of this article was created at Context-reflux (hyphenated), which has now been turned into a redirect to Context reflux. If the result of this discusssion is "delete" then please also delete the redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced neologism. I cannot find any reliable sources that document its existence. Feezo (Talk) 02:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Per Talk:Context reflux, article was put up as part of a class. Google searches few results period, none from reliable sources. Clearly a neologism. Zachlipton (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as the one who PRODded it; I was tempted to tag its initial incarnation as G11, but I still think it should be deleted per WP:NEO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced neologism. JIP | Talk 06:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The first few Google hits are Wikipedia, Wikipedia, a blog, another blog, YouTube, Facebook, another blog, a Wikipedia mirror, and so it goes on. No reliable sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete complete lack of any ghits/gscholar/gbooks results. Dictionary definition of a neologism. (Although, I don't understand how G11 could even possibly apply to this article - it's pretty much just a dicdef.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.