- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Man Shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEO Alexandria (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Obvious and silly neologism. EEng (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTDIC, NEO, and probably MADEUP. Sorry for the VAGUEWAVE, but this seems like a clear case and my intent is to forestall re-listing for lack of consensus. Cnilep (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2011 (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.