- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Operanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not for words made up one day in May. This is sourced only to a blog written by its inventor, who also posted the article. A nice word, but for an article on a neologism Wikipedia requires much more documented evidence of widespread use, and treatment in secondary sources. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism. It doesn't even follow italian diminutive structure.--Savonneux (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The creator is the same person who is claimed to have coined the word, and the only source is his personal blog. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No, it's not about an opera that is sung in Esperanto. Article's author made up a word from two other words, which I've already forgotten. Mandsford 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this isn't WP:MADEUP, then nothing is. We have to dispense with this page, or with WP:MADEUP. Chris the speller (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2010 (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.