Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awks as forks

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 speedy delete as vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awks as forks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contested PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice! Why can't there be a speedy criterion for hokum such as this? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also incoherent gibberish. --Lambiam 21:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has so many things going wrong with it that I don't even know where to begin in justifying my deletion discussion. Neologism, non-neutral point of view, potential COI, and most importantly this doesn't come up with any sources what so ever on a search. I'd almost say that this would count as a vandalism page under G3. In any case, it a painfully obvious delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for G3 since this looks more and more like it's a hoax or vandalism. I can't see where anyone has used it other than the one person who created the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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.