Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brgr


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Brgr

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:NOT - creator removed prod tag, so it's being brought to AfD.. First Light (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy cited. No doubt it bears mention in hamburger, however. Yakushima (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per not a dictionary. It looks like this spelling is mainly, or only, used in online communications. If the information is kept this should be made clear. Borock (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is original research, it says so right in the last paragraph "...A recent web search finds...", also WP isn't a dictionary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * move to wiktionary 64.229.103.232 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Not only WP:OR, but WP:NOT. And speedy, because for a dictionary definition it doesn't even have the advantage of being a word... -- BenTels (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being a real word is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but G3 is, and I'm not too sure it doesn't apply here. -- BenTels (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to consider this vandalism. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic.  Dr.frog (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2011 (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.