Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion.
9 b.g.c. hits, all of which seem to define the term immediately (and often humorously). --EncycloPetey 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The term is indeed intended humorously, and sources do tend to define it when they use it; but neither humor nor defined-ness is a criterion for exclusion. —RuakhTALK 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
See WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. If all supporting quotations are mentions, rather than use of the word, then we don't have support for this as a word in English use. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, but that's not what you said. You said that they "seem to define the term immediately", which WT:CFI explicitly says is not a problem. —RuakhTALK 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
More important than being immediately defined, the term rarely appears to be actually used. DAVilla 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed used in all VMS (VAX) and OpenVMS (VAX, Alpha, Itanium) Operating Systems as a timing parameter set in the SYSGEN parameter list. It is not only humerous —This unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
The citation is fine as an example, but is it not a mere mention? I would have thought that something only being used immediately next to its definition is virtually proof of it being a protologism. I recall being beaten about the head and shoulders concerning such. That the definition is put in the mouth of a character does not make it any the less true that it does not have meaning independent of its definition in the specific usage. DCDuringTALK 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)