Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abount

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abount

Made up nonsense, by same author as Bruggle Camillus (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• um.........

I didn't write bruggle. Abount is actually used by people. All the time. I didn't even coin this term to start with. I learned through other people who have used it long before me.Ricecrispx (talk)

Do people outside Indiana even know this term? Royboycrashfan 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for delete as there are few relevant ghits. Most of them appear to be misspellings of "about". Royboycrashfan 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is more or less a slang term--Ricecrispx 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, my mistake - while you contibuted to Bruggle by removing the prod tag without expalanation, it appears to be another editor who created Bruggle. Please don't impersonate me or any other editor, by redirecting to MY talk page in your signature. Camillus (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• um.........

i did nothing to bruggle but defend it cause i agree with what it is saying and the talk thing was my fault--Ricecrispx 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per RoyBoy Ruby 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WINAD, per nom --Aking 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've lived on the west side of Indy and currently live in Dayton and I have never heard this term. Peyna 02:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

what age group are you?--Ricecrispx 02:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no sources - unverifiable CDC (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. They usually tend to be even more non-notable when they say when they were coined, because the creator of the article tends to be close to the creator of the term, and so it probably hasn't spread very far. Not, however, that the Bruggle reference was added by Ghost LLP, it wasn't in the original article. Rory096 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no hits either on dictionary.com etc - if it is a word that means anything it certainly isn't notable. VirtualSteve 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and non-verifiable neologism. JIP | Talk 10:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. All Google hits appear to be misspellings of 'about'. -- Mithent 13:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per CDC and JIP. —rodii 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 04:02, 12 February 2006 (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.