Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crap

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 of the debate was keep this crap. Ifnord 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap[edit]

There is already an entry on Wiktionary for crap. This article has been and remains marked as Move to Wiktionary. If it is already on Wiktionary than it should be deleted from here in favor of the Wiktionary entry. Further, I do not see that this article is anymore than an elaborate dictdef as was purported when the prod tag was removed. James084 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although some may be offended by this article, wikipedias goal is to have an article an anything useful. i used this to see if my my girlfriend loved me (dont ask)
Keep. There is a section at the bottom that can be used as a dis-ambiguation page for the uses of the word. Georgia guy 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable article especially with dab aspects. Move to Wiktionary tag removed. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DicDef, not enough crap there for a full-up encyclopedia article Ruby 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, crap.~~ (Sorry, I've always wanted to type that on AfD.) Change to disambiguation page, agreeing with Georgia guy. The rest is properly Wiktionary content, not Wikipedia. Barno 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This dicdef is a piece of... garbage. And don't you dare insult Thomas Crapper!!! --M @th wiz 2020 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change bottom section of article to disambiguation page and delete the rest of crap. --FloNight 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or redirect to feces. Peyna 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to feces. -Jetman123 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Disambig; its a dictionary def --Bletch 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Flonight. Mike _{(T C)} 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does not look just as a dictionary entry --Angelo 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a dicDef. Particularly the information dispelling the myth that it derives from Thomas Crapper. Paul August ☎ 04:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Disambiguation possibilities are stretching (since none of them are actually the word "crap". Fagstein 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting article. I learnt something new today! Jcuk 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I meant keep, of course, per the very good Paul August. ENCEPHALON 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul August. Not all the useful information is in Wiktionary, nor should it be. The Etymology and myth dispelling is encyclopedic Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a common word and if deleted it will be recreated. Elfguy 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above Compu te r Jo e 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap and have a disambig and link to wikt. instead. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Neither wiktionary nor disambiguation are appropriate if either mean the loss of information. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is an extended dictionary entry and WP:NOT and all that. Mikkerpikker ... 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very common word. If the article is deleted, it will likely be created again. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Ibn Abihi 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this necessary crap. It is a very common word, likely to be recreated. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is not a dictionary definition really Yuckfoo 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete disambig page would get absurd....per nom not an encylopedic entryAnlace 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig this should be nothing more than a page linking to other approprate pages... all other content is in Wiktionary... Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, and article is more than a dicdef. --Allen 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on the precedent of Shit. If etymological discussions of dirty words is encyclopedic as retention of the cited article indicates, then certainly crap should stay as well. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion is encyclopedic, not lexicographic, in tone and scope. Ikkyu2 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46. Forbsey 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shamed keep - it is an encyclopedic topic too, and it can be expanded upon.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's encyclopedic information about the word too. Car salesman 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per norm. 3H 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is way more than a dicdef. Turnstep 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to precedents with articles like fuck and shit. If they can exist, "crap" certainly can. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (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.