Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douchecunt


 * 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 DELETE. User:SandeepMadhur and User:Gemini5785 are obvious sock puppets. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Douchecunt
Protologism. WP:ISNOT a dictionary—even of established words. enceph alon  09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. enceph  alon  09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per &mdash; J I P . -feydey 12:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete attention-seeking behavior. Denni &#9775;
 * Keep This is a one of a kind word and needs to be treated like that. Wikipedia has both "douchebag" and "cunt" as words so there is no reason why the combination of the two words should be erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepMadhur (talk • contribs), at 22:42, 2005 October 21.
 * Keep Society create new words everyday. Words don't need to be in a dictionary to be validated.  And I've bet many people have combined the word "douche" and "cunt" to form douchecunt to insult, make fun of, or joke people.  Just because some poor brown man at UR thought of putting it on wikipedia, doesn't mean you have to be jealous and try to take it off!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemini5785 (talk • contribs), at 04:49, 2005 October 22.


 * 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.