Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocoduck

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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crocoduck

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

Minor neologism as part of evolution/creationism debate, barely worth a mention in that context. PROD was removed without comment from an IP user Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is documented by reliable sources as being used by both sides of the creationism discussion to make their points. "Minor neologism" or not, it is notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Crocoduck term may have started out exactly as nom stated, it has received a wide range of notable coverage within the creationism/evolution debate. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major hits in Google; Google books even shows a mention by pro-evolution book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Dawkins. The only other alternative would be to merge into Creationism or Creation science article. --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2013 (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.