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. Even if we ignore the hoax angle, consensus is clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swender[edit]

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

the article is more suited to Wikionary raseaC^{talk to me} 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced DICDEF. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. Vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete and watch the creator - hoax-only account so far. Their first hoax was speedied whereupon they created this one - why is this one even being discussed? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 07:36, 19 January 2010 (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.