Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiscandal

: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. --Core desat 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

=[[Wikiscandal]]=

{{#ifeq:Wikiscandal|Wikiscandal||

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiscandal}}

}}

:{{la|Wikiscandal}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Dicdef, Neologism, self reference pgk 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per all of the above. tomasz. 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. FCYTravis 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
One protologism in the title of an ABC News article does not a concept define. And that's all that actually exists, as far as I can discover. There are no sources at all. This is original research — the inference, being performed by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia, of a novel concept from the use of a protologism in a news article headline, with zero documentation already existing outside of Wikipedia of any such concept. Delete. Uncle G 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikidelete as a wikineologism. Adding 'wiki' to a word does not really make another word most of the time, and definitely not in this case. WikiTony WikiFox 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:55, 29 May 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.