Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swigger vote


 * 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 IAR delete. This word has less than ten G-hits, all of which are blog posts and comments on forums which were obviously made by the article's creator. Considering its similarity to a certain other word, we had better have sources, and not a few. Since there simply are no sources period, let alone reliable ones, the word was obviously made up by someone. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Swigger vote

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is administrative on my part as two editors are edit warring over a prod tag. Usage of the term is largely unsourced, appearing only in blogs which are not necessarily reliable sources TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my prod, no sources which meet WP:RS, possibly a hoax, possibly attack on McCain, who knows, since so little is out there on it. --Terrillja (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Terrillja's rationale. I found one usage of this in a Google group entry and, of course, in the Wikitionary link that was created by the same user who created this article.  Pinkadelica Say it...  02:57, 26 October 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.