Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quaject

: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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Quaject]]=

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

This entry seems to be original research, it seems to be originating from a thesis dissertation, a quick search in Google show that it's not really notable--Khalid hassani (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Outside of Pu and Massalin, it doesn't seem like this term has caught on.[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=quaject] -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete No reliable references on the search engines, and this topic would be mentioned if it was used. It is therefore in the category of neologism, although an interesting idea it is not notable as not published by others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (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.