Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphepun


 * 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 . east. 718 at 19:02, 11/3/2007

Euphepun

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable neologism. John254 15:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The lamest neologism ever.--victor falk 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow - there are so many things wrong with this article. Dicdef of a neologism that was, according to the article, born into the English language on June 31, 2007 by the 'esteem linguist' Ryan Russell who i can't find on google, and we don't have an article on. THE KING 17:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. DrFluffy  22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NFT. Deor 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wiktionary entry at best... if it is for real? I hope not.Hagan jared 02:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete This word has validity in everyday language, despite its lack of appearance in a dictionary. It will be useful for people who hear the word and need to search for its definition. It should remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.216.191 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I too searched for “Ryan Russell” on Google and had trouble finding any information about this ‘Esteemed Linguist.” I found it difficult because of the fact that both his given name and his surname are very common. As far as grounds for deletion? I find it hard to judge a linguist. Such a person is challenged to be creative in his/her speech. All words have an origin. Wikipedia might just be this words birthplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.140.99 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 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.