Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muggeseggele

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gschupfta Ferdl (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 10 July 2013 (keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Muggeseggele

Muggeseggele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no establishment of Notability and is basically a dictionary article.

See WP:NAD ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. As I've discussed at the article's talk page, most of the content is dictionary stuff (e.g. etymology, English counterparts). The claims to notability are that 1) a famous businessperson mentioned it as an example of the Swabian dialect, and 2) it's taught in classes. I do not believe either of these claims establishes notability for a word or expression. Note: I also made some suggestions at the article talk page about places this content could be merged to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ell was originally a cubit, later replaced by the cloth-ell or 'double ell'.
This article is truely written in the style of an encyclopedia and does not fit into a dictionary at all. The closest English term is "gnat's cock" or a "gnat's dick". Although it is possible to measure the diameter of this organ of a gnat, nobody would assume that this term is used as a precise dimension such as a millimetre. However, some Suebians believe, that a previously vague unit equals now the average length of 0.22 millimetres. If one follows your request for deletion, you would need to delete also ell and Foot (unit). Could it be that the slightly embarrasing function of this body part is the real reason for requesting its deletion? Please keep this article! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article sghould be read before coming up with claims like "no notability established". To the contrary, various (sourced) information about its notability is being provided

  • Iconic character, stated e.g. by Wolfgang Wulz as President of Verein Schwäbische Mundart (Association of the Swabian Tongue)
  • One of the most preferred Swabian idioms.
  • It has been dubbed as the smallest Swabian measurement unit.
  • One of the very rare instances of sexually themed abusive words in the German language
  • Prominent example of peculiar admirable Swabian Onomatopoeia.
  • Use to signify a Swabian cultural influence on others
  • The term is being used as example for must-know Swabian vocabulary in courses of Swabian as a foreign language in Tübingen.

I understand this as a sort of WP:POINT maneuvre to torpedo a DYK nomination, whch was already on the waiting list. Serten (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NearEMPTiness and Serten: please do not keep trying to discredit editors who disagree with you by making unfounded speculations about their motives. We have already discussed at length the reasons behind my concerns, and it is already abundantly clear that you think the claims establish notability and I do not. There is no reason for you to suggest that any editors are trying to delete this article because it's about penises or because of anything having to do with DYK (indeed, the status of an article on DYK has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on an AfD debate; "it's notable because it's been nominated for DYK" is not at all a valid argument against deletion). You have no evidence to suggest that and it is completely unrelated to the discussion; please stay on topic and address the arguments, rather than the editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We had a merge discussion first and now its about deletion, please understand that this lacks consistency and I uphold the notion aboit WP:point. Furthermore you have not substantiated your claims, your statements a) b) purporte a lack of sourcing which is easily ruled out by reading the article. Serten (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) PS.: BTW - have a look on the German Wikipedia Main page de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Schon_gewusst, today and tomorrow Muggeseggele is being featured there. Serten (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about lack of sources. Also, the status of an article on another language Wikipedia is not relevant here; different Wikipedias have different content guidelines. Finally, the person who nominated this for deletion is a different editor than I (the person who started the merge discussion) am; of course different people sometimes have different opinions, and it's quite inappropriate to you to suggest that either of us has bad or POINTy motives just because we don't hold the same opinions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets discuss the claims, which imho are substantiated by various sources. My count is at least 7 claims of notability, yours is about 2 and youre doubting them as well. How to explain the difference? Serten (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that.

  1. This appears to be a dictionary like entry in a self published e-book. Hardly a WP:RS and does not establish notability.
  2. The only thing in this article that refers to the word in question is a statement that this is one of the person being interviewed's favorite words. Certainly is not the subject of the article (which is what WP:N requires... not simply that the subject is mentioned within an article)
  3. This one again is simply a mention of the word in the article. It is simply a funny way to introduce the article, which is actually about a seminar and was the answer to a question at the seminar. Does not establish notability.
  4. This reference only has the word once in the entire book, and I could not find a translation. I have no way to establish notability from this source, but I wouldn't rest a case on this source one way or another.
  5. See previous note.
  6. This reference is completely irrelevant and needs to be removed.
  7. Again, basically just a definition...
  8. See number 3, same reference
  9. Again, the article is not about the subject of the Wikipedia entry, just a passing reference to a similar English term.
  10. See 12... not about the subject, the English equivalent phrase is simply used, not discussed.
So it appears that you don't actually have any sources that actually establish notability... since none of the sources in the article qualify as such. This word may be notable for German Wikipedia, but it is not notable for English Wikipedia. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK

  1. Never heard of Langenscheidt? Calling a Langenscheidt dictionary a "self published e-book" is ridiculous.
  2. Wulz is head of the association for the swabian dialect, clear indication of iconic status
  3. The report about the seminar puts muggaseggele on the titel and indicates iconic status in the text
  4. Try as well Muckenseckel, there are different ways to write it, gauger elaborates on it as well, long entry, clear indication of notability in a scholarly book
  5. see above
  6. I doubt so, gauger is clear about the topic and challenges Dundes Thesis
  7. see above
  8. Dostert - clearly indication of use and value and iconic status
  9. petershagen - clear indication of use value and measurement by expert
  10. Gnats cock is refered to as a sort of "see also" entry, completely appropriate and adding value

Strong Keep Serten (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that resources about language happen to use a word as an example of dialect differences is not an indicator of notability. Look at English for comparison; in the United States there is regional variation in whether people call this "soda" or "pop", and there are literally hundreds of articles and websites devoted entirely to this topic (see e.g. http://www.popvssoda.com/, [1], [2], [3]), but that does not necessarily mean any of these words are notable (and indeed, none of them have Wikipedia articles). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Muggeseggele and Muckenseckel in german is similar to the one between Potatoe and Potato, so pop/soda does not apply. There are difference between sources like Gauger, langenscheidt and Wurz and pop/soda bloggers. Gauger is a serious scholar and the book in question is noteable [4], Langenscheidt an international active publishing house doing encyclopedic books and Wulz the head of the Swabian dialect association[5]. Pop/soda bloggers are just pop/soda bloggers. Serten (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the books may be notable... the word muggeseggele is not the SUBJECT of the books, they are only mentioned in passing as a single example of the swabian dialect. This would be akin to saying that "sneeker" is a notable word because some language professor mentions that it is only in New England that it is used... ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you thnk that? Gauger wrote various pages in his book about the linguistics of the word, thats not a dictionary. If you ask for a book / monography just about muggaseggele, sorry thats a Bridge to far. If you like to see a suitable example, take the entry about How (greeting), best the de:Howgh. Noteable, for sure. Muggaseggele is either used as a measurement unit and to adresse the member of a male fly. Serten (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. A word that may have an iconic status in German doesn't necessarily make the grade in English. The article is about a German word, sourced almost entirely in German. The three or so English citations do "bugger all" in defining or documenting the word's status in English usage – in fact they merely point to the use of "gnat's crotch" without drawing any specific reference to the German term. Pardon my French ;-), but we quite rightly don't see entries to "connard" or "pédé" for that same reason despite the fact these are equally "iconic". Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term that comes from the Alemannic dialect, enjoying long time in the German cult status and is standard knowledge for anyone who is interested in Swabia and its inhabitants and its culture. See references. --Jocian (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that a word is "common knowledge" does not in of itself make that word notable (see WP:IKNOWIT and WP:Subjective importance).
      The editors arguing 'keep' also keep making reference to the "iconic" or "cult" status of the word, which as far as I can tell is basically a personal, subjective judgment. The source provided in the article doesn't actually make this claim; as far as I can tell from Google Translate, it's an interview with one individual saying that he likes that word. Other sources that have been mentioned include those just listing the word as a well-known example a word in this dialect; that is hardly unusual or impressive for language materials (any resources about any given dialect will mention some key examples of words from that dialect). Sources like these are not sufficient to establish "iconic" status of a word--and even if they were, I am not sure that something as vague as "iconic" status of a word directly translates into notability anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We had this article in much smaller and less sourced version on the German art for deletion page and then at the german Did you know. Now we have to tell a blind guy about the colour of milk - if you dont get the meaning - godness, google translate - why dont you ask somebody who knows about stuff? Serten (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained to you that the presence or absence of the article on another Wikipedia has no bearing on its notability here. Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria (for example, editors on French Wikipedia chose to include a dictionary of Han characters on their Wikipedia, something which would never happen on en-wiki).
As for Google Translate--yes, I'm not a speaker of German, so I use what resources I have available to try and gauge what is in the references, while being aware of the potential limitations of automatic translation. Many Wikipedia editors do this. Are you suggesting that editors who don't speak German do not have the right to participate in this discussion? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm think I would have to leave then. Serten (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally left off the word "don't" in my message, and have corrected it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some further links to underline the claim of "iconic use". I still dont get the point why notability is still doubted. Serten (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the content you added is extremely trivial. A sport team using this word as their name, or a person using this word in a sentence, is far from establishing notability. These are examples of the word being used, not examples of the word being discussed in reliable sources--you can read about the use-mention distinction to understand this difference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem to be a notable usage, certainly not in English, nor other than trivial. While this is not a pure hoax, there is a student-joke quality to this material that basically just brings the project into disrepute. There is no censorship here, just a preference for worthwhile material. The article is basically about a word, so WP:NOTDICT may well apply also. The comparisons with possible English counterparts suggest WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Various notions of notability presented. No notable usage in English is a sort of speak white argument and I stronly deny that being valid. It might have a sort of student joke character like Jakob Maria Mierscheid which is noteable and finds its way into fandom and newspapers. And yes, a sports team (and in case of ultimate, its the one that hosted a world championship) using the gunners or the Muggenseggele as name is clearly an indication of notability. Serten (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have already !voted above; to help keep things organized for the admin who will be reading this discussion, please indent this comment and remove the bolded "keep". Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's a duplicate !vote. And that isn't what Wikipedia calls evidence of notability, no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasnt aware that the votes of the previous list are counted here again. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaugers elaborate address of the phraseology and etymology of Mucken seckel/ Muggeseggele / and Seggel is not to be called an "entry" or brief notion. As well are references to the word and in the way they are annotated to Wulz and Lindner in major newspaper clear indications of notability and NOT mentioning. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muggeseggele&oldid=563704429"