Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnaged
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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted (G3) by LadyofShalott. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Schnaged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:DICTIONARY whereas Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete: Not only that, but it also violates WP:NOTNEO and WP:ONEDAY. I also think that there's a possibility that it might be eligible for speedy deletion as a hoax. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a word in general use. Certainly WP:NOTNEO and [[WP:ONEDAY]. reddogsix (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and I make my usual plea for a speedy category for blatantly non-notable neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.