Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zingamama

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. --Coredesat 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zingamama

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

NN neologism Palfrey 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Page created by new user who has generally only contributed nonsense and vandalism. Zaian 13:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure neologism.--Húsönd 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not Delete This is a valid entry - however should you still vehemently dispute its being due to your lack of musical knowledge (read: real musical knowledge) then perhaps it should be merged into a larger 'modern choral technique' page or similar. - Waffenkartoffel (talk · contribs)

Zingamama gets only 10 google hits. When your contributions consist of extreme racism, trivial references to unknown people, and bad spelling, other people might not take your opinion on their musical knowledge seriously. Zaian 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete You people arent worth the effort. Go ahead and delete it. Waffenkartoffel (talk · contribs)*

• Do Not Delete This is a warmup that does wonders for your singing and we often use it. However, I do agree that the writer of this article has limited musical knowledge. You can't argue with that, it is a true zingamama (refering to zingamama being used as an exclamation following a great insult, shutdown, comeback or similar). This article could be improved to become a great entry in the glorious pages of Wikipedia if the article were to be extended to cover all meanings of zingamama. Distant Shores 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete this entry This article is 100% legitimate and I have used it with many choirs over the years. Many a time have I heard the phrase used as described above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.75.175 (talk • contribs) November 9, 2006

• Delete neologism, not notable, definetly not verifiable(and I have my doubts it is even real), doubious origins. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 9 November 2006 (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.