Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chonga (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Article expanded. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chonga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From deleted PROD: Slang dictionary definition, needlessly re-created after unsalting. Not significantly different from version deleted at AfD by a landslide.. Illia Connell (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, just out of curiosity, what makes you say it's not significantly different? I mean, I know these things are hard to judge without being able to see the deleted version, but the current version has a source that was published two years after the old version was deleted last. That alone is enough to stave off the previously-deleted angle, at least for me. Comparing the current and deleted version (at the time of the AfD), I can tell you they're pretty different. No actual delete !vote yet, but just wanted to chime in and say that the "previously-deleted" argument doesn't really hold much water. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD was in 2006. Did you notify the contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chongalicious (2nd nomination)? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful recreation, there's potential for this to be expanded by sociologists and feminist scholars. Even as it is, the article goes beyond a dicdef due to the excellent source added by the Doctor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyouthankyou. There's more, though JSTOR doesn't offer anything. There's a bunch of news mentions in the Miami papers but those are directly related to the Chungalicious fad. There is, however, an article in Bitch, six pages long, but I don't have access to that. Feyd, are you a subscriber? Drmies (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try WP:RX, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amazingly enough, I can get it through institution subscription if the date's in the right range - do you have details on the cite? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but Oh NO! Yes: CHONGA GIRLS CELEBRITY BLOG. By: Reihani, Sara. Bitch Magazine: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Winter2009, Issue 45, p28-28. Oh NO! I misread that entry--it's one single page. It also said "1/6p" which, for some reason, I read as "six pages long". But Nikkimaria, could you try and plug it into some other databases? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, send me an email and I can forward you a PDF. There's a summary of the "Bratz Doll" article in a later issue of NWSA; a potentially useful dissertation here unfortunately won't be available for a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received a good deal of secondary source coverage, but you have to look under the various alternate spellings, for example chongalicious (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than dictionary content, a notable cultural construct, with sufficient sources in the article plus the additional ones in the "Chongalicious" article. (We've previously discussed whether to merge that article into this one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)
Delete, this is a slang dictionary definition of no actual encyclopaedic merit. The sources are a slang dictionary (which we are not) and a namecheck in a minor journal. This is not a subject of any objectively discernible significance and it should never have been re-created after the previous consensus deletion and salting. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete (or merge with Chongalicious). The article is still nothing but a dictionary definition. If the article is expanded to include any sourced information besides a definition, I'll probably change to Keep. As it stands, however, the previous AfD still seems valid for this content. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chongalicious (not vice versa). That is the longer article and it seems that more of an explanation of this term in that article would be useful. LadyofShalott 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has become somewhat perplexing. The excellent source added by the good Doctor doesnt just "namecheck" chongas, its entirely about them. It discusses the etymology of the term; provides sociological analyses of chonga sub culture, sums up the extent of current scholarship on chongas; discusses the chonga's political significance and valence; and ends rather poignantly with a plea for further scholarly investigation to explore how the chonga identity can help young women understand their "bodies and pleasures".

Chongalicious is a major internet phenomena covered in depth by hundreds of sources, so naturally it warrants its own article. But it doesnt even represent 0.1% of what there is to say about Chongas - it's merely one of the most notable media depictions of the subculture. To risk a very imperfect brief sketch: from a Hispanic perspective, the Chonga identity is empowering for some, while for others being shameful and a means by which social pressure is exerted to get them to conform (both from the dominant Anglo culture and internally within the Latina community.) For non Hispanic women, chongas can be source of sexual insecurity, a phenomena of interest, and even a cause for sisterly concern. For men, attitudes can range from admiration to disapproval, with some at once fascinated and guilt ridden by their appreciation of the chonga image.

Moving from the personal to the political, attitudes and stereotypical portrayals of chongas are an important part of the US culture wars. They help explain the apparently paradoxical fact that Republicans have enjoyed a clear majority of the white working class votes since Reagan. Note how our article on the Elián González affair suggest that even that individual incident had an effect on the 2000 presidential election. Chongas even affect international relations, for example, news that several members of Obamas delegation were frolicking with Chongas upstaged the serious work being attempted at this years summit in Columbia, in part as it showed hypocrisy. As such, propaganda involving Chongas is an important part of a great struggle that effects all of us; the global, centuries long battle of titanic wills and intellects over politico-economic policy.

Since the 2006 there have been literally thousands of new sources published about Chongas. Admittedly most seem to be in Spanish, but there are at least several hundred in English. Aside from deletionists destroying our article on Michelle Obama, it's hard to think of a more embarrassing example of systemic bias than deleting or merging this article. The Doctor is not in the habit of recreating articles without good encyclopedic reason! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feyd, Cirt, I am amazed. Well done and thank you very much for picking up the slack for me. I knew the subject had promise but never had the sources to prove it, and you all added sources and content. Bravo. Lady, we're well past merging at this point, I believe. Psst, Nikkimaria, thanks for the link but it required me to log in, which I couldn't... Drmies (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Feyd, if I can yell at you while you're on your soapbox, you're absolutely right. But that "Chongalicious" gets so many more hits and "thus" would be a better article (I'm not saying you're saying that) again points out the weakness of Wikipedia's relying on news sources. Five years from now that stupid video will be nothing, and chonga will be around still. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Solid article on a notable subculture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep - nicely expanded. LadyofShalott 04:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously of cultural significance. If there's a merge the song obviously would go into the (now) larger more general article. CarolMooreDC 18:20, 13 November 2012 (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.