Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokka

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. JForget 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mokka[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM with no indication of notability. Unsourced and incoherent article. noq (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A similar article was created in Tamil a while back -- மொக்கை என்றால் என்ன? and deleted by AfD. However, the content isn't the same, so this doesn't qualify for G4. The usage mentioned in this article is not the primary meaning and nothing beyond blog level content in the article to keep it. Not worth a transwiki to anywhere either. -SpacemanSpiff 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or userfy - there is text thereon that indicates it's still under construction. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to delete it. No attempt has been made to rescue it. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per spiff. this is a recent slang word, with mostly blog content--Sodabottle (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable neologism, and I don't care about text saying under construction - this is a wiki, it's all under construction - there is userspace for preparing articles, but articles in articlespace must meet criteria.--ClubOranje^T 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough of a slang word for a Wikipedia article. Priyanath ^talk 00:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a self-confessed neologism. Though it claims to be widely used, I can find no indication of it being so. I don't think there's much chance of it being pushed over the notablity guideline any time soon, so there's not much point in userfying, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced neologism, no indication of notability. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[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.