Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poo-chucker


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Poo-chucker

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural listing. Contested prod. Editor who placed the original prod tag gave the following rationale: "non notable neologism,Content not suitable for an encyclopedia,possible hoax." Pastordavid 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm going to say delete it, but if the sources can be validated, I will take another look. -- Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι  τ  оr   20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am the editor who who placed the original prod tag. This is a non-notable neologism and a possible hoax. Supposedly a baseball term but a google search for "poo chucker" baseball generates only 11 results ( 3 of which are related to Wikipedia). There are sources listed but they are difficult or impossible to verify. Even if the sources were valid I would contend that the subject matter does not deserves an entire article. Furthermore, more than half of the article consists of a subjective list of "poo-chuckers" which would need to be removed immediately - who gets to decide who belongs on this list ?. -- No Guru 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOT, the fact that it has no references other than, and the original PROD reason. If all else fails, merge to List of baseball jargon. ~ Μ ΛG иυs ΛΠ ιмυМ   &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The lack of search engine results may imply that it is a non-notable neologism. However, the mention in a 1969 magazine may have a slight weight in verifying it. If only a copy can be obtained, that is.--Kylohk 09:25, 2 June 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.