Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kegulator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kegulator
This isn't notable at all, the article has no references and is generally a mess. I think the author coined the word himself. Serviam (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a WP:DICDEF, and appears to be more material for Urban Dictionary - which we are not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - neologism with no indication of widespread use. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all above; WP:NEO or at best WP:DICDEF, and unsourced. JJL (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleteasper above comments and a based on a baseless article . doesn't seem to be for wikipedia.--@ the $un$hine (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The odd things you find in your watchlist. Anyway, fails WP:NEO; there is no evidence that this is anything more than a non-notable term. It fails WP:V and WP:RS through not having any, but on a quick search I doubt they will turn up. WP:DICDEF also applies. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as an unreferenced unnotable neologism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a dicdef of a neologism. Not notable even as a term, but no hope of expansion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 29 May 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.
