Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mott (a joke)


 * 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. Shereth 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mott (a joke)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources asserting notability or even existence has been provided. Mattinbgn\talk 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd have thought it was a speedy candidate under context even `Ged UK (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is clear what the meaning is. I did look for a reason to speedy it and couldn't find one.  I PRODded it and it was removed without comment or improvement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy if possible. Its unverifiable and gibberish--certainly doesn't merit space for a Wikipedia article. Artene50 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if WP:NEO doesn't apply, WP:NOTDICDEF still does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge This is certainly not notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps if it could be sourced it might have merit as a subparagraph in another article, but I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing here but a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be in use. No google hits for "mott a joke", "mott the joke", or "mott that joke".  My guess is this was created to harass someone named Mott. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Urban Dictionary Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia isn't even a dictionary. J I P  | Talk 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This phrase seems to be not in use. MahasonaLK (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mott To borrow a non-notable neologism. --Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should have been speedied.  — Athaenara  ✉  01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment under what criterion? -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. WP:CSD (test page) may be closest, but none fit it perfectly.   It was prodded rightly.  The author then removed it without comment (cf. Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion).  I'm glad the the original prodder had the git-up-and-go to follow through here.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: having found no sources anywhere (reliable or otherwise) ... it might simply be a hoax. — Athaenara  ✉  03:14, 15 June 2008 (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.