Talk:I'm Rick James bitch

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

I'm Rick James bitch

This is a idiom and a phrase, it's like "like water for chocolate", "i'm coocoo for cocoa puffs", "life is like a box of chocolates".23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep.Lucifer 23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's utter tosh. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like tosh to me, however a Google Book search gets 95 hits, also this one calls it an 'over-used catchphrase' which suggests it has more than a literal meaning. Restored for now, let's keep debating. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really used and all words in all languages seems to ring a bell here, the quotes I added seem to show that it is used in literature and also report that it is used not just when quoting the show which no longer airs but for unrelated reasons such as the term has been defined. Almost like an interjection if you ask me.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The "all words in all languages" argument works much better for, you know, words. That motto doesn't mention anything about phrases and lengthy interjections, however commonly used they are. — [Ric Laurent] — 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a catchphrase. Do we accept these? Is there a missing comma? SemperBlotto 11:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we do, but there are "phrases" as qualified entries so I would say it is. Technically it is missing a comma, but printed words spell it with and without, one instance even spelled it "I'm Rick James's bitch" but that seems like a typo, and the ' is wrong on top of that.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Like most Internet catchphrases, it is not CFI-attestable and will be forgotten in six months anyway. This should have been an RFV. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I have now verified it, and it was easily attested. I don't know if CFI covers such a term but as per wikipedia, when no rules fit the bill make one up, I say this should be treated as a proverb, although it isn't.Lucifer 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I speedied it right after Troy made it. Then about a full day later, he put it here, then Martin restored it. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion, it simply didn't seem speedy-deletable. BTW it does get 95 Google Book hits. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things that get 95 books hits wouldn't be the kind of thing we include. Naturally, what seems speedy-deletable is completely subjective and to me, it certainly looked it. — [Ric Laurent] — 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ric: For what it's worth, I'd have done the same. —Ruakh_TALK 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that it got speedied, I thought it would be a longshot for inclusion. So to avoid any edit warring for conflictiveness when I noticed it was outright deleted I just put it here so as to get others' opinions. Having said that it's used a lot, now I don't know or necessarily personally think it is a proverb, but maybe its a phrase here? It is set. It was popularized by David Chapelle. It's kind of like It's peanut butter jelly time if we have that, as for a comma, maybe it should have one but it is said awfully fast, with no pause so I didn't put that there.Lucifer 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the citations: 2004 does not convey meaning; 2008 and 2009 are mentions; 2010 and 2011 are in poetry, in which the meaning the term is supposed to have is not at all obvious. I don't see the meaning conveyed by the 2007 cite. All of them do seem to allusions to the Chappelle Show (a comedy). I certainly don't see much support for the definition in the citations.

Contrast this allusion with that giving the prevailing meaning to bell the cat. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though some are not direct quotes they are printed examples, contextually, of the writer cataloging the usage in the form of a quotation and report that it is used as an exclamatory to grab attention.Lucifer 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of them count for attestation. Please see WT:ATTEST. I can't imagine including this under any plausible phrasebook criteria, either. The supposed meaning is an attempt to say that the attitude with which a performer delivered this has become an implicit part of the meaning, when there is no evidence that it is actually used that way, rather than mentioned. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should edit the definition then? It is attested after all.Lucifer 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The mentions don't count at all. I can't tell what meaning(s) is(are) supported by the citations apart from the literal one: I am w:Rick James, bitch. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's an interjection of irreverenceLucifer 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, those citations don't back up any meaning, apart from a literal one. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted — [Ric Laurent] — 02:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Um...Dick Laurent voted in the deletion discussion, then closed it as deleted...I seem to recall policy/guidelines say you can't close a discussion you voted in Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say this? It would be pretty nonsensical, as it meant if every admin voted in a discussion nobody could ever close it and it would go on eternally! -- Liliana • 02:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a highly unlikely scenario.Lucifer 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In this very case, if you want, I can reopen it and close it right away, since I never voted, but that won't change a thing and is ultimately rather pointless. -- Liliana • 04:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you could but I think there was no decision made here in the discussion other than not knowing how to deal with it.Lucifer 21:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)