Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prook

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. Brandon (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prook

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

This seems to be at best a dictionary definition and at worst a neologism. The first two "references" are examples of 'prooks' (as defined in the article) rather than sources about 'prooks'. The third is perhaps more promising, but I don't have a copy at hand. I doubt, however that Vita Sackville-West discusses the concept of a 'prook' therein; I think this "reference" was included just to help define the Bloomsbury circle. I also doubt that such a term would ever have been needed in polari. pablo_hablo. 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 14:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a dictionary definition, and Pablomismo accurately describes the references in their nomination statement. I am not recommending a transwiki because I have not been able to find any durably archived uses of the word (required by Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion) - the hits I do find that are not nonsense or wordlists appear to be either typos or scannos of the word "proof". Additionally I've not been able to verify (after an admittedly short search) the article's statements regarding Polari. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictdef. Insufficient referencing to support the potential for this to be expanded into an encyclopedic examination of the term. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources, and therefore lack of verifiability and unclear notability. Cnilep (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it for a while? It has the ring of a Mitford word (Nancy in her Heywood Hill days?) but lack of verification is obviously a problem. I should have thought books and bookshops would have been ripe for Polari, but, again, is there a reference? LymeRegis (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but open to WP:Heymann clean-up. A quick look at some of the source links atop this page yeilds ... not much. If this word is even somewhat well-known we should be able to find something substantial. For a word article you need to show it's use and we don't seem to have that. Also I dispute the polari content - it sounds like Ubbi Dubbi instead. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a WP:DICDEF, with nothing to say about the subject other than a list of claimed examples. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 20 November 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.