Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian SCOTT


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy deleted as unverifiable and possible hoax -- Longhair 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian SCOTT
Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and there is practically no encyclopedic value to this article. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C)  05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Australian English. Bobby1011 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * if verifiable, which I severely doubt it is. I get 68 unique Googles for ["Australian SCOTT" nuclear], from 113 total hits. The majority of the hits on the first page are news 'summary' pages, with information concerning one of the Bali Nine ("20 year old Australian Scott Rush") appearing on the same page as media-quoted concerns over nuclear testing programs in Teheran, Iran, and Japan. As an OR aside, I'm Aussie, and I've never heard this term used. Delete, unless externally verified. -- Saberwyn 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, never heard it. It's either absurdly recent (non-notable), localised or just plain bull (patent nonsense). In fact, judging by their user page and contributions such as Image:Sw3gc2.jpg, I'd bet on the later. &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 07:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it either, and I doubt there's anything worth merging. However, I'd just like to note that "Speedy delete, never heard of it" will live on immortal as one of the most unfortunate phrases ever offered up on AfD.  Heehee ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was originally a plain delete vote, but the more I looked the more it seemed a speedy. ie: patent nonsense. Apologies for my   poor phrasing, enthusiasm or whatever.  &mdash; Graibeard(talk) 08:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. Probably unverifiable and certainly not notable even if verifiable. Capitalistroadster 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 12:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC) "
 * Speedy delete as unverifiable and nn. --Ter e nce Ong 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This has to be false. Chairman S.  |  Talk  21:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This has to be false. Chairman S.  |  Talk  21:03, 24 February 2006 (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.