- 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 McDelete. --Coredesat 07:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, in my opinion, a completely non-notable neologism. It's poorly written and does not merit inclusion. alphachimp 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One usage of an epithet does not an article make. Mangoe 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete. Total BS article. Also, I've never seen anyone put their signature on an article before. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I did speedy it, but the author came to my talk page to protest. I thought it would be more reasonable to run it through AfD first. alphachimp 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is not notable. I have seen someone sign an article before, though. Acalamari 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion - just pointing out it passes the Google test at [1]. Bearian 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a nelogism although it might be useful to add it to the dicdef of 'Mc-' as a pejorative prefix. Eddie.willers 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge and redirect to pseudoscience, which IMHO covers the topic in a better fashion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- McDelete Not McNotable. McJuJube 04:52, 3 May 2007 (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.