Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malagnorum

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. Speedily deleted by Maile66. (non-admin closure)

Malagnorum

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

Beyond the scope of Wikipedia; this article looks like a dictionary entry instead. Ueutyi (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should be a disambiguation page or article of wiktionary? EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disambiguation, because it only links to overabundance, and to plethora (which itself means "overabundance"). Plus, there are very few Google hits for "malagnorum" - does the word even mean "overabundance"? (Is there any evidence that such usage actually exists?) Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place where the word appears in Google search are the scans of some old Latin books. Of these, three appear to be a personal or place name, the last some corrupted text caused by the scanner reading the text from the reverse side of the page. Speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A11, anyone? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an English word as far as I, or the Oxford English Dictionary, or even Google know. Cnilep (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Cnilep. No definition in Oxford Dictionary either. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, it looks more like a hoax than a dictionary entry. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another place it can't be found is Hartrampf's Vocabularies. I don't have Roget, so I can't check there. But I can check the Times English Dictionary - guess what? They've not got it either. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a not very commonly used latin word, but combining prefix mal- and agnorum, the word means bad lamb. Ueutyi (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, Google Translate doesn't recognise it. 'Bad lamb' is possibly a bit obscure (actually, 'of the bad lambs' to be strict), and it would be a genitive plural, which is odd for a noun used nominatively. (OK, there is omnibus, but that was used as a dative on purpose - 'for all'.) Peridon (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2016 (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.