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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. This is an apparent protologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and even if this is beyond a simple definition, I can find no reliable sources verifying that this has any usage, much less widespread usage. Note that Google web and book bring up many false positives, but none I can see that are about the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no evidence of notability. All google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. No usage means it fails the general notability guidelines, and therefore as a neo- or protologism, it should not be included. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable protologism, and in any event WP is not a dictionary ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO and WP:NOT, it's a non-notable neologism, and google searches really do not give any credence to the term. Charles D. Ward (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT, as mentioned above. No evidence to suggest that this is a notable term. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If any source is found, Merge/Redirect to McWord. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 22 November 2008 (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.