Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crappling


 * 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. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Crappling

 * — (View AfD)


 * deleteMade up word of no real notablility or importance Peter Rehse 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete although maybe it could be mentioned at Bullshido. I'm proposing merge of mcdojo and bullshido. --⁪froth T C  01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with bullshido not enough info, or notable enough, to be worth it's own article. --Nate1481 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NEO. No reliable sources to demonstrate this neologism is in notable usage. --Muchness 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Term is not notable, has not reached main stream media, and there is not enough information about the term to support a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOT). Merging with bullshido would not fix these problems since term appears to suffer from similar problems.  Wiktionary may be a better place for the term if some references supported the topic.  -- Jreferee 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The best source I could find was urbandictionary, which says a lot about the term. Not verifiable. --Wafulz 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Delete - as per nom. POV is off and negative on another institution. Ronbo76 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 07:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverified neologism. J I P  | Talk 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge This article and Bullshido should be added on as sections of McDojo. (edit)...or McDojo could be merged into Bullshido either way's fine with me. I've just heard the term McDojo used much more often.
 * Delete unverified neologism. Even with verification, delete because WP:NOT. Doczilla 08:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverified. Good joke, though. Possible WP:DUMB material. --Shirahadasha 08:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Urban dictionary doesn't lend support to non-notable neologism. Budgiekiller 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete highly-specified neologism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:NEO --Haemo 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.