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.--Wizardman 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrot rot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Dubious slang term. Would redirect to Jock itch but article makes no mention of fungal infection which is principal in that syndrome. Listing for community input. No Vote exolon 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable neologism. Only a handful of GHits outside of slang dictionaries like Urban Dictionary. --Haemo 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable and written in an informal tone--$UIT 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable neologism. Send it back to the junior high school locker room where it belongs. Lankiveil 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Haemo. NN. Scienter 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Resolute 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it be urban slang, and a neologism. Realkyhick 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT#DICT for WP:NEO--I already forgot 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely unnecessary and badly written. -- Wenli 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NEO TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jock itch, I can imagine someone searching on this. - Iridescenti 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NEO], unsourced, plus WP:NOT#DIC. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I understand it this is the UK term for Jock Itch. So redirect at least. A clear example of systematic bias. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, it's still a dicdef and belongs on Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this since there are over a thousand hits on google and a redirect could be usefull for people who are searching for the term.[1] Mr. Berry 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as the term may be used, but this article won't be. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Iridescenti. it seems entirely appropriate to redirect to the subject that the term refers to. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to jock itch. Dicdef, and of dubious notability to boot. Herostratus 14:31, 28 March 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.