Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoodrat

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:09Z

[edit] Hoodrat

Hoodrat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A silly neologistic unattributed dicdef. PROD was contested on the talk page, so here we go. Sandstein 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as misogynistic neologism. Bucketsofg 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but ONLY as an unexpandable dicdef. Whether it's silly and whether it's misogynistic are irrelevant, as the word is a notable neologism. However, even a real article (as opposed to this crap) would be a stub that defines the word and nothing more. Hoodrat (or, more frequently, "hood rat") has been used by many authors and, especially, rappers- hell, there are a film and a book on sale at Amazon.com titled Hood Rat, and Skee-Lo's hit song "I Wish" used the term in 1995- but aside from listing people who have used the term, what else can be said? -- Kicking222 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to the fact that the current article reads like a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kyra_~(talk) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm the prodder. More appropriate for Urban Dictionary, since this will never be anything more than a dicdef. --N Shar 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete N Shar beat me to the UD comment. Also, when did hood rat become a compound word? Do you pronounce this like Doctor Zoidberg pronounces robot? --Djrobgordon 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have to concur with those have posted before me - wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --Ozgod 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete Aside from the dicdef issues, I can find no reliable sources that discuss the term (although there is apparently an unrelated movie by the same name which does have sources). JoshuaZ 08:23, 28 February 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.