Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OR-E


 * 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) 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OR-E

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a neologism. Can't find any sources outside Wikipedia. Psychonaut (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No references on Google Books, Scholar or News.  Alleged web site dead.  Either completely non-notable or a hoax.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A very cool hoax, but a hoax nevertheless. This is so well researched and encyclopedic that I actually want to keep it, should there be any chance of it being true. It just might have been something proposed by a group of linguists in some random conference, but in either case it would not be notable enough or lack sources. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B;  (talk)  19:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not a hoax; more likely to be the vanity article of some conlanger. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought so as well. Still, it's rather nitpicking, it doesn't really matter if no sources show up. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B;  (talk)  23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability and verifiability. Cnilep (talk) 23:59, 5 March 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.