Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quechev
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 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quechev
PROD template removed. This is a neologism, if not actually a hoax (zero ghits); and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a neologism. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - fails the notability guideline - there is no significant coverage in reliable sources (in fact there is no coverage anywhere at all, insignificant or otherwise). Fails both points at WP:NEO - the article is an attempted dictionary definition and even the article creator acknowledges there is no evidence to support its widespread use (other than vague statements about growth in "major population centres"). With respect, this has the classic signs of something simply made up one day. Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as OR "...is not currently accepted by any major literary bodies" seems to be confirmation of this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no secondary sources at all. Possible hoax? Lankiveil (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
- Comment—{{Copy to Wiktionary}} added. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment—JohnCD asked on my talk page about my tagging this for copying to Wiktionary, arguing that because there are no sources, it is probably a hoax. No google hits and no sources does not mean that something is a hoax. A large percentage of the world is not touched by the contents of Google and I really dislike people making notability arguments based on "number of ghits". The consensus here so far does not say "hoax", it says not notable or original research more than anything else, which does not equate to "hoax". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if we are assessing whether something is a new, up-and-coming slang term or just something made up one day, a total absence of ghits is quite a good clue. It's also perhaps relevant that no one has come forward in support; all that has happened to the article is that an anonymous IP removed the PROD tag once and the AfD tag twice. Still, it's Wiktionary's problem now. JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment—JohnCD asked on my talk page about my tagging this for copying to Wiktionary, arguing that because there are no sources, it is probably a hoax. No google hits and no sources does not mean that something is a hoax. A large percentage of the world is not touched by the contents of Google and I really dislike people making notability arguments based on "number of ghits". The consensus here so far does not say "hoax", it says not notable or original research more than anything else, which does not equate to "hoax". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence that it is not a hoax has been presented, and it is certainly not notable and has no independent sources.--Grahame (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NEO. Nasty. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Roisterer (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICT and quite possibly WP:BOLLOCKS. Orderinchaos 18:46, 9 December 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.
