Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtesy flush

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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy flush

Courtesy flush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Urban dictionary entry with no stated notability except for two trivial mentions in popular media. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki It's a reasonable enough term that I wouldn't call it a neologism any longer, but it belongs there as a dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is apparently too much for some users to handle. However, I see nothing at all "inappropriate" anywhere in the content; the most offensive word is "defecation", which happens to already be in the Wiki. Also, how can this be irrelevant because it is a phrase, when there are Wiki entries for "BYOB", "BBW (much more inappropriate than this article - it is primarily used in 'sex-wanted' ads online)" and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.232.82 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's slightly more than a dictionary definition. It's a novel concept that cannot be expressed with any other word or combination of words. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An unnecessary article that's childish, but also original research. The "how to" section was an added bonus, perhaps the result of carrying a laptop everywhere. I can't see that this would be a worthwhile topic in any event. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete again. You could try a transwiki but I don't think this would meet even their standards for sourcing of usage. The current version is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism (both inappropriate for the encyclopedia). One of the alleged sources cited in this article isn't even about this subject - it's about a not-particularly notable product. Rossami (talk)
• Delete the second source asserts that "Courtesy Flush" is a product. The first source is not a reliable one, given anyone can edit it (yeah, I know...), there seems to be no indication that this is a notable subject, or widely used, never mind having gained significant coverage in independent... etc. So fails WP:N, also fails WP:V... definite delete, unless you can prove notability and... actual useage. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:07, 8 August 2008 (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.