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 speedy delete as a combination of nonsense, vandalism, and disruption. --Wafulz 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky[edit]

Wonky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is just nonsense. Probably speedyable, but the tag was removed by another editor. janejellyroll 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic, unverifiable. Aspires (very poorly) to be a dicdef. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteGman124 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic sillyness. It's been speedied a few times already. ... discospinster _talk 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The current vandal of the article has already attempted to obfuscate his user talk page by moving that over to wonky and blanking it, but it seems that bots would keep up on that. So it occurs to me that this history should be preserved somewow. As for the term, Wiktionary has it already. I'm hedging on a delete and salt, and will roll with that if we have something to keep the history (or a reason not to). --Dennisthe2 01:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Complete, unsalvageable nonsense. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:40, 9 April 2007 (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.