Talk:wigga

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

wigga

Previously discussed under a different spelling's RFD and deleted.

User:Kappa restored this without explanation on the sly, in direct conflict with general conventions; previously deleted "questionable" entry must have three citations provided before being restored. (Obviously, no effort at all was made to provide even one, nor to address the invalid spelling variant.)

--Connel MacKenzie 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain the relationship between the discussion and your deletion? Kappa 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It speaks for itself - the spelling is simply wigger. Curious that you omitted other relevant discussions, as well as the other previous deletions. --Connel MacKenzie 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So your position is that wigger is the "correct" spelling of this thing, and that had been established by the previous discussions? Kappa 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Connel's position is, or what exactly he considers a "questionable entry" (apparently not scap for instance). The discussion doesn't reach any conclusion in my opinion, except that no one really opposses wigger, which is really tangential. In having failed RFV, this entry cannot be recreated without three citations for a one-year period, after which it would be immediately subject to RFV again. It's odd that it wasn't actually deleted until May 2007, and then without any specific reason given (which is why your actions are forgivable), but in my opinion the rule should apply through May 2008. Strong delete. DAVilla 11:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this entry was never RFV'ed and the arguments for deletion were thus complete bullshit. Thanks Visviva for the citations. Kappa 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)