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 speedily deleted (G3) by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borkastani[edit]

Sounds like a dictionary definition for a neologism with grain of original research.VG ☎ 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It would appear someone made up a word and created an article for it --Megaboz (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G1 (as currently tagged) does not cover hoaxes, which this word eminently is. VG ☎ 20:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is critical of the survival of wikipedia. No one will no what borking is without this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.30.195 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if this article is deleted, i will lose all faith in wikipedia, and will declare them the biggest borkistanis around. people need to be taught the ways of the borks and the borkistanis who keep the tradition alive!

signed, a borkistani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.94.40 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the db tag to g3 which covers obvious hoaxes. Borkastani gets 2 google hits, but with a different meaning. VG ☎ 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article Dreamspy (talk) 20:48, 12 October 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.