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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mocro[edit]

Mocro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by single edit user in September 2010, and no textual development since, though has been marked as having multiple issues. This is a classic example of a dicdef, albeit and urban dicdef, that attracts no wider usage and is only seriously linked in Google as an urban dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Emeraude (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. it's been two years waiting for a single reference. no reason to believe a word of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unexpandable dicdef, probable WP:NEO and WP:ONEDAY. —Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2012 (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.