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. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isigqumo[edit]

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

This doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution, no sources appear to exist on this at all. The article pretty much comes out and admits this. There are various links at the end of the article, none of which are about this language. We have no way of knowing if this even exists. Xyzzyplugh 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:ATT. There are zero hits on Google Scholar [1], and something just raises my hackles when we read about a hitherto-unknown and -unnamed cant that's exclusively about explicit homosexual sex amongst blacks; I suspect hoax.  RGTraynor  13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - not one of the sources cited uses the term once. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:38, 11 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.