Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glurge

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glurge

Glurge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

del a really new neologoism nonnotable `'mikka 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There should be a way to speedy delete neologoism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Snopes. As a protologism it gets some hits but I wouldn't say it's seen much beyond references to the site. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If anywhere, but not Snopes: originated elsewhere. `'mikka 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as the first words say... it's a neologism! SkierRMH 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mention it in Snopes. This was a great idea for an article, but until verifiable sources are provided to establish notability, we really can't have it. Glurge may have been the subject of newspaper articles by now. Anyone interested in saving this article should investigate that possibility. Shaundakulbara 06:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge Just because it's a neologism isn't a reason to delete it, but...well, there's no sources. While I'm sure the word has gotten around, as Shaundakulbara said, until someone can find some sources, deleting it is really the only real option (shame, too, I like this article). --UsaSatsui 15:09, 26 January 2007 (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.