Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekorrgos


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ekorrgos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. Only reference is someone's blog. Article is quite possibly a G3 candidate. Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. IDONTKNOWTHIS is not a reason to delete, but as a native speaker of a language it's always a red flag when you see a term that you've genuinely never seen before, and which looks like a random compound - note that Swedish can form compound nouns rather more easily than English, and all Swedish-speakers create lots of temporary compounds on the fly, all the time. That being said, I have Googled the term and it does pop up in some blogs, on Facebook pages and forum posts, but it still fails WP:NEO. The article's reference - a personal blog - states unequivocally that "ekorrgos" is a word the blogger had heard a friend use and which she thought was cool. WP:MADEUP applies here. The term is not used or discussed in any reliable sources at all - but I don't think G3 appplies, it's not a hoax, just a really obscure neologism. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ephemeral neoologism sourced to a blog from 2009. Incidentally it was deleted from Swedish Wikipedia as a neologism in 2011 and as a dictionary word on 8 April 2013, the same day that it was created here (in Swedish yet, see history). Bishonen &#124; talk 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete.. No reliable sources exist for this neologism with a jokey, hoaxy feeling to it. Given the known history it seems clear this was one person's idea of amusing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a hoax, really. The history may simply indicate the creator feels quite strongly it should exist somewhere. (I look forward to it appearing in the Nynorsk or Tagalog Wikipedia.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. There are several good reasons for deleting this article, including the WP:NOT argument that English Wikipedia is not a dictionary of obscure and local Swedish slang (as I native speaker I had never heard this one before, BTW), even if it should turn out not to be a neologism and the article would be rid of its other issues. To me the case for deletion is so obvious that I would have PRODed it myself if I had stumbled upon it before this nomination. Tomas e (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete hoax at worst, utterly non-notable micro-neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:13, 26 April 2013 (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.