Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoodrat (slang)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoodrat (slang)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no RS Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. DarkAudit 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not the place for this. - Richfife 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google search indicates neologism. BTLizard 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If you wish to delete this article, then you must delete the entry slut as well, being as how they are essentially the same word.--Helgers7 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal Slut is a notable term that has existed over 600 years and is in common use across the english speaking world. Hoodrat isn't.  Words are removed based on notability and popularity, not meaning. - Richfife 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Numerous independent non-trivial articles have been written specifically about the word slut and its meaning has changed over time. These two facts mean that mean a properly sourced encyclopedic article can be written. Hoodrat is just another neologism. -- Charlene 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument for obvious reasons.  If you want to make an argument that actually holds water, unlike the one that you made above, you should argue about the concept denoted by the word, not about the word (Wikipedia is not a dictionary.), and demonstrate that that concept has been documented in depth outside of Wikipedia by multiple reliable sources. Uncle G 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RebuttalWell with your logic, it would be acceptable to say "just because african americans get equal right, doesn't mean we should give them to other minorities", so I'm afraid its your argument that doesn't hold water. Also the idea that wikipedia should not be used for specific words is also flawed since countless other words are defined here, however, it is acceptable that that this entry should have more background and typical uses.  As far as it being neologism, just becuase it is a relatively new word doesn't mean it should be deleted.  I wouldn't be surprised if it appears in the dictionary in a few years.  In any case, what about the entry for truthiness?  I can remember the first night that term was used and yet I don't see any deletion discussions on its page.  Finally, being as how almost 200 songs use the word, I'd say its not so unpopular as people on here would like to make it seem.--Helgers7 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. No reliable, independent third-party sources are discussing this specific word. -- Charlene 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary. Has over 100k google hits. It is not simply a neologism, but there is also not enough content for an article about this. Drdisque 06:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary already has hood rat. Please check before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did check, I typed it like the article we're voting on though, not with the space. -Drdisque 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. As I have said previously, 90% of neologism articles should be shot on sight.  As DarkAudit has correctly pointed out Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. ---Cathal 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete slang neologism with UD listed as a source. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The version of that was deleted via PROD on 2006-05-17 was quite similar to the current content of this article. Uncle G 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Need more credible dic defs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per no credible references. Sens08 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn neologism. Ford MF 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.