Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slurgyness

: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 snowball delete - 7-bubёn >t 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Slurgyness]]=

:{{la|Slurgyness}} ([{{fullurl:Slurgyness|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slurgyness}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

An article on a neologism, an example of what Wikipedia is not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it for things made up one day. This term has no real notability. A speedy was declined for this article, and the original author did away with a seconded PROD, so here we are at AfD. --Dynaflow babble 12:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As the article tells us outright, it is an abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise a protologism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and novel concepts are not permitted. And no, Wiktionary doesn't want unattested protologisms, either. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not verifiable by reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete I would have tagged it for a G3 speedy myself. --Finngall ^talk 14:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - as opposed to claiming notability, the lead sentence admits the opposite. "Slurgyness is a 'Neologism' as such this article does not claim that slurgyness is an established or even a 'real' word.". LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per nom and other comments. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete with a prayer/request for snow. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete garbage. JuJube (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, WP:SNOW - the article basically admits it's a pretty precise violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Indeed, it doesn't quite work with any of our speedy-deletion criteria but it's certainly worth removing forthwith. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:35, 20 January 2009 (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.