Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monorangeosis

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. Per WP:IAR yandman 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monorangeosis[edit]

Non-notable word that, at least according to the article, has it's origins on a current TV show. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as hoax or neologism. --EEMIV (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither being a hoax nor a neologism are valid speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition and neologism. It's not obvious that the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, but probably could have been handled by PROD. Cnilep (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO - it gets a grand total of 4 ghits, two are Wikipedia (the article and this page), one is an unchached-myspace page on which the word does not currently appear. The final one is a single message on Twitter - hardly a reliable source. This is a borderline A1 and A3 speedy but not quite either I don't think. Perfectl PRODable though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I tried to clean this article up as best as I could, I am unable to verify its contents per not just Google News or Books, but even on a regular Google search, which as indicated above only gets four hits: 1) the Wikipedia article under discussion here; 2) a Wikipedia user subpage; 3) Twitter; 4) MySpace. Thus, the article does not meet WP:V or at least WP:RS. If the spelling is incorrect and the subject does have more sources under some kind of modified spelling, please let us know, but otherwise as I am unable to rescue this one I cannot currently argue to keep it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Nobody. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability or common use outside the TV show it supposedly originated from. It's not even a protologism. —LedgendGamer 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - would be a dictionary definition if it were real, but it's just a bit of nonsense trivia from a television show. Ladyof Shalott 17:01, 29 June 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.