- 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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism with no reliable sources Will (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. All 4 cites are unreliable. Bearian 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Any term that doubles as a sex/pot term has to be made up, but seriously, this is not even worthy to put in Wiktionary, where, if it were a real term, would belong. 3 of the 4 links in this article do not even mention the word, and the one that does is a page that anyone can contribute to. Gorkymalorki 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - is this a hoax? Jauerback 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Little info on it. However, it's not a hoax or made up. The December 21, 2005 issue of the Pittsburgh City Paper (Volume 15; Issue 51; Page 47) Expletives Repleted; The OED talks the talk has an anonymous person who claims that 20 years prior, a woman reporter at his college newspaper mentioned "scrog" as a euphemism to mean "sexual intercourse." There is a band called "Scrog", which might be notable. There is scrog gin and a street called Long Tongue Scrog Lane. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:03, 2 August 2007 (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.