Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crumber


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Crumber
By the same people that brought you the Chimney starter and the Beurre mixer here is the Crumber. I just don't believe these common "appliances/tools" deserve their own articles. James084 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; the article right now is terrible, but it has some potential. Somewhere. joturner 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per joturner. (Shouldn't it be called a de-crumber?)   dbtfz talk 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joturner. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joturner. --Ter e nce Ong 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this is important in the restaurant business really erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've never heard this called a "crumber"; around here it's universally a "crumb rake". I suppose if we keep it I can propose a page move. MCB 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common tool.  Just because an article will never be lengthy doesn't mean that it should be a dictionary definition. But I admit that with this article it is hard to tell which it will wind up. Crypticfirefly 06:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. Unencyclopedic dicdef.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 00:12, 9 March 2006 (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.