Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swagglicious

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 already speedily deleted by User:INeverCry. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swagglicious

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. —Noiratsi (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This page is not worthy of being a surviving article on Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever. This page should be speedily deleted, instead of go through this discussion stage. I don't know if this would be worthy for keeping even on Wiktionary. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is for articles that meet certain criteria that have been agreed on from past discussions and situations. Do you think this page meets any of those? My feeling was that it probably didn't, which was why I brought it here instead. —Noiratsi (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2013 (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.