Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schmuck

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

None of the content seems to meet wikipedia guidelines.

Vernacular Usage - goes against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Use in popular culture - Not references, not very notable - not encyclopaedic in the way it is written

Surname - Of the four people mention one (Roger Schmuck) doesn't have an article, two (Marcus Schmuck and Peter Schmuck) have stubs and one (Donald Schmuck) has an article that has been nominated for deleted on notability grounds with a result of no consensus - not the most notable bunch then.

Taking all of this into account I'm not really sure if this page it at all necessary - if you want to find the definition of the word there are many internet dictionaries that can be used - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At the most this should be disambiguous page for people who's name is Schmuck (as suggested previously) - although taking into account their (small) number and lack of notability I don't think this would be necessary - with maybe a link to the List of English words of Yiddish origin article for information on the word. Any thoughts? Guest9999 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to List of English words of Yiddish origin, per a lack of encyclopedic content. It's essentially a dictionary definition. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not only a dicdef, it gives a bit more origin to the word, and shows some of its other background. The problem here is that there seems to be a very fuzzy line on what constitutes a dictionary definition - and while it defines the term, it also gives some background to it. Perhaps revisit it in a few months and see what it looks like. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is essentially a disambiguation page. I will format it to look more like one shortly. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed the "pop culture" section. Also as Dennis notes above, the article is borderline and probably could be expanded into a full-length article. However, even now I think it's fine as a disambiguation page. -- Black Falcon 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If adding a background means that the article is not a dictionary definition then any word could have an article - especially in English where most words have a somewhat interesting history - essentially this makes the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy redundant. [[Guest9999 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]
    • Well, what I'm seeing is kind of weird. If it's a strict etymology cite, then yes, it's not only a dicdef, but a really good one. If you can flesh it out beyond an etymology (case in point...well, schmuck), then you might have something. The line's really fuzzy, though, as near as I can tell. Probably should bring it up in a talk page somewhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Another Comment - The information about the origins of the name seems to come from a website called Schmuck Fest [[1]] I don't know how reliable this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs)
    • Well, you know what they say, it takes a Schmuck to know a Schmuck. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Besides Rosten, there are other discussions. It's more than a word, its a concept. But the people should go on a different page--and why doesnt Roger have an article if he was a major league baseball player?DGG 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I came to the page specifically to look up the history and finer details of its vernacular usage and was enlightened as to its non-American meanings and histories through the page. That said, the article is fairly dumpy and could stand a solid rewrite and perhaps an instance of the Schmuck family coat of arms. Krapitino 05:52, 22 April 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.