Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamacita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as a neologism- that is what the article is based on. Teke (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mamacita

Mamacita (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Did I miss where "Atom doesn't like the nomination" became a speedy keep criterion? I'm thinking it's not. GassyGuy 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a major clean up is carried out. Mallanox 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of the general resistance to nominator's recent crusade to purge WP of sexual slang he doesn't care for. Otto4711 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a neologism, a standard Spanish language word, dimunitive of mama, fairly wide distribution in English. The article is beyond a dicdef, although it could be expanded further... Cheech Marin used the word, and that was about 30 years ago (mamacita with the bony knees) ;-) Tubezone 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Close to 800K ghits seems to negate the WP:NEO argument. For what it's worth, OutKast also has a song by the same name, which reinforces the term's cultural relevance. Caknuck 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This one isn't really going anywhere beyond a dicdef and proof of usage. One could write a similar article about "sweetie pie" or "sugar lips" or other terms of endearment. I'm not sure how the fact that it's a word and it gets used makes it notable when that argument could be made for any word. GassyGuy 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This one is just a dicdef, and unlikely to proceed beyond that. Tevildo 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Bad faith nom per Otto4711. Well-known enough term, but article needs to be properly sourced. Ohconfucius 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Lovey dovey" is also a well-known term. "Sweetie pie" is a well-known term. "Chump" is a well-known term. "Hijo de puta" is a well-known term. Do they merit their own articles? No, because, like this one, they couldn't really expand beyond dictionary definition status. What else is there to be said about "mamacita" beyond further examples of usage? It's just a word, and all this does is give various denotations. GassyGuy 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
After re-reading the article, I see that you have a point, and have withdrawn my vote. However, it does not discount the fact that the nominator reveals his motivations with his/her themed AfD discussion which appears to target sexual slang in a manner which may be coonsidered indiscriminate. The nom does not cite "dicdef" as grounds for deletion. Ohconfucius 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep but I do wonder if we may be becoming liable to discount any nominator of even a remotely sexual subect by theis particula nominator.DGG 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - dicdef, with some non-notable WP:TRIVIA rant about a WWF wrestler. Does anyone look up Mamacita on google in order to know more about the wrestler? All other information is just dicdef. This term isn't really sexual either, thus this nomination doesn't fit that category (i.e., in this case, bad faith nomination ≠ shouldn't be deleted). -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:05, 17 January 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.