Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taboo Curran

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 (G3) by MCB. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo Curran[edit]

User:Roxineous has a history of adding stupid terms such as Scarefy and Togglator, both of which were deleted as nonsense. This term has absolutely no hits on the web, nothing in Google books or scholar. The dictionary link provided as a reference does not support the term. There is no evidence that the book listed even exists, nor can I find any evidence of the publisher listed. Speedy was denied, citing these supposed references. Dmol (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as made up. No evidence of book reference existing. The dictionary link is for taboo not taboo curran. Some action should also be taken against the article creator. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<<post ev>>I rejected the speedy not knowing the creator's history and giving the benefit of the doubt on the source-- books 100 years old are hard to find copies of on the internet. I also suggested that the creator needed to work on sourcing. A 100 year old source is hard to verify. The publisher nay have gone extinct. In any event, I find no trace of that Roger Garrisson, though there is a contemporary writer who gets Google hits. As I also mentioned, consideration should be given as to whether or not this is more than a dicdef. Even if this were a real phrase, the creator has not done a creditable job of providing evidence of Encyclopedic significance-- no notability supported by verifable sources. I feel the creator of the article made a fool of me with a plausible sounding argument to not delete the thing. In view of that, this edit, and the information provided by the nom-- delete. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Actually, I deleted, had second thoughts after reading the passionate pleas on the talk page, and undeleted. Also, I freaked when I could not find "obvious hoax" among the CSD tempaltes. Dloh cierekim 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. WorldCat shows no evidence of cited reference or its author. If it existed, it would be in a library somewhere. Deor (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Nonsense/hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear hoax as checking any dictionary will show. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please read discussion Talk:Taboo Curran as well. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:40, 7 August 2008 (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.