Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exspurious

: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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Exspurious]]=

:{{la|Exspurious}} ([{{fullurl:Exspurious|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exspurious}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Google gives two hit, both related to this article. No need to transwiki. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO; WP:WINAD; WP:NOR. Ka renjc 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEO Graham Colm ^Talk 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete this unsourced dictionary definition of an apparent neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (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.