Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmuck (pejorative)

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. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schmuck (pejorative)

• Keep this and make the connection that Schmuck was used coloqually as a reference to the "Family Jewels" and thus the pejorative use came into being.

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary the information contained within the article is nothing more than what would be found in a dictionary (see the Wiktionary article wiktionary:schmuck) such as the definition, usage and etymology - along with a smattering of original research. The word is already mentioned in the article List of English words of Yiddish origin and commonly used; that does not mean it should have an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. I don't see anyway this could be expanded to be encyclopedic. Redfarmer (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As it stands, the article is only a little more than a dictionary-type definition, but that is not to suggest that there is not grounds for expansion. The word itself certainly has a good deal of significance on a cultural level, as it represents one of the most prominent words of Yiddish origin to be assimilated into the standard English lanquage, making it a very notable aspect of a culturally significant linguistic aspect of history. As such, I would be very surprised if there is not more material relating to the history of the word's entry into and usage in the English language, material which could be used to help make this into a well-rounded encyclopedic article. Calgary (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• We already have an article on Words of Yiddish origin that discusses how such words enter the English language. We don't need article on each individual word repeating the same discussion. There's nothing that can be said here that cannot also be said in the actual encyclopaedic article dealing with the subject of words that have Yiddish origins. The "cultural significance" argument is bogus. The subject that sources, such as ISBN 0817311033 for example, discuss is the loaning of Yiddish words, by groups or as a whole, into other languages, not the individual words. Etymologies of the individual words belong in the dictionary, at wikt:schmuck for example, which Words of Yiddish origin can easily cross-link to, just as wikt:Category:Yiddish derivations cross-links back to Words of Yiddish origin.

  This article, and indeed the duplicate disambiguation at Schmuck, should never have been created. What should have happened is that the dictionary content should have been kept out of the original disambiguation article (which is now a disambiguation-within-a-disambiguation at Schmuck (surname)) in accordance with our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The article did sport a link to the dictionary in a big shiny box in its top-right-hand corner at the time, after all.

  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete this, delete the wholly unnecessary duplicate disambiguation Schmuck, and let's have the name disambiguation Schmuck (surname) back where it once was. Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep One of many articles that goes beyond a dictionary definition, with Rosten source cited. Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A subject that could be expanded fairly easily; ought to be possible to find sources discussing its fate in the English speaking world, and its (non)recognition as an obscenity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep That there is an article on such words in general does not mean that individual ones aren't notable. this one is, and there will be sources. There's a great deal more to be said. DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (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.