Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rokh & tokh

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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rokh & tokh

Rokh & tokh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An unsubstantiated protologism/neologism, no reliable sources. I offered the creator some time to provide sources and he stated that he would be unable to do so (see Talk:Rokh & tokh) because of the phrase's newness. I couldn't find any English sources but perhaps there are some in another language; if so, I felt this would be a good way to get them into the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• As the article's creator explains, this is primary documentation of the undocumented. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is not a free web host for people to employ to write up documentation of things that haven't been documented yet. Everything in Wikipedia must have already been properly documented outside Wikipedia first. The places for documenting the undocumented are magazine articles, papers, books, or even simply one's own web site. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism and even the "infamous 'rokh & tokhers'" don't seem all that infamous. Gaffertape (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Rokh & tokh" is either a neologism or a hoax or just a variation on breach of promise in some unspecified language. Furthermore, this article has serious WP:BLP problems. In no way does it belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete' I have removed a section of outrageous BLP violation. first one set of names added by the orig. editor, one know for vandalism edits to various articles on India. (then changed to another set of names by an IP editor.) Casts extreme doubt upon the entire article. I wouldnt object to a speedy as vandalism. DGG (talk) 01:26, 7 January 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.