Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slightlitching

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightlitching

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Original Research and personal experience Anbu121 (talk me) 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research. — sparklism ^hey! 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An essay comprised of original research. Zero Google news hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEDAY. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of like writing a dictionary for you and your brother's version of "twinspeak". Might make sense to the author, but really, who else would care? Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 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.