Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugger

Add links
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. MBisanz talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger

[edit]
Bugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Wikipedia is also not the place for word histories. This article is composed entirely of those two items (the two main headers are "History" and "Usage"). I can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about this word, and the topic (as opposed to the word) is covered adequately by buggery or sodomy. Powers T 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers T 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've always understood this to be the British equivalent of the All-American "F-word". The Wikipedia articles about both words are equally dull and loaded with OR observations about how the word can be used in context, and apparently were more fun to write than they were to read. That said, I think that if the article about the American expletive were nominated, it would be an easy keep, and the same holds true for this one. There is a continuing need for deadly dull articles about subjects that are not taught in school, and Wikipedia serves that need. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what on earth makes you think a word that has been attested in English since at least 120 years before English speakers settled North America is "all-American" or an "American expletive"? —Angr 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't say we invented the f-word, anymore than our British cousins invented the act that it originally referred to. We just perfected its use as profanity. Because that's what we're good at. USA! USA! Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could probably be better sourced (but then if you hit Special:Random ten times you'll probably find at least seven articles that need to be better sourced), but it is unquestionably a valid encyclopedia article. We have an entire featured article about about a word's history and usage, so I don't know what leads LtPowers to the conclusion that such articles are inappropriate here. —Angr 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thou is (art?) a far better article than this. Not every word has the potential to be written about encyclopedically. That some do is no evidence that all do. Powers T 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that this article is of poorer quality than a featured article is no reason to delete. The fact that the word bugger does have a lengthy, partially sourced, interesting and encyclopedic article shows that it at least does have the potential to be written about encyclopedically. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's not encyclopedic. All it contains is lexicographical information -- history, usage, that sort of thing. That's not encyclopedic. Truly encyclopedic articles on words have extensive discussion of the words' effects on culture and history, not simply their presence in culture and history. "Thou" rises to that level, as does "fuck". "Bugger", simply, does not. Powers T 14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, perhaps with redirect to buggery. The only thing I see of interest that's not covered in "buggery" is the "Bagarap" paragraph (and maybe the Stevenson anecdote); pretty much everything else in here (etymology, usage) is either DICDEF or already found in "buggery." Drmies (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly unreferenced content, and generally articles on word usage do not belong in Wikipedia anyway - they don't translate well into other languages. This belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Michig (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is already way beyond being a dictionary article, so WINAD doesn't really apply. Much of what is here would not sit well in the buggery article, since the main usage of the term is nowadays as unrelated to that word as politics is to politic. Unlike Drmies, I can see several things which are encyclopedic but neither etymological nor covered at buggery - the controversy over the Toyota ads, for one thing. Certainly this is, as Angr points out, a perfectly acceptable subject for a wikipedia article and unquestionably encyclopedic in scope. Simply because one user "can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about this word" doesn't mean that others will find themselves at a similar loss (I can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about Paris Hilton - should her article be deleted?) Grutness...wha? 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grutness, here are the Google News results for toyota + bugger. I challenge you to find something in there that (in a non-trivial) manner says something in-depth about the ad. I tried but failed. And I might as well edit the article to insert an OR tag--because what seems to matter is the offensiveness of the word and the expectation of the PR company that it would attract attention; precisely that link isn't easily verified (maybe because it's so obvious, or maybe because it isn't that big a deal). I may add that there is no reference whatsoever for this statement. The article as a whole is almost completely unreferenced, the most solid of references being...a dictionary. No, I'll stick to my guns here; there really is no scope here. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be quite a lot here. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "beyond" a dictionary article? What referenced material is there in this article that wouldn't belong in a comprehensive dictionary? The etymology belongs, and the usage guide belongs. So what is there here that is "beyond" what a dictionary should include? Powers T 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit there which wouldn't be in a Wiktionary article, which is the dictionary we'd be most likely moving any information to. This has considerably more than many, many vocabulary articles on Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything here should be in a Wiktionary article about the word. A dictionary entry should cover all the meanings and shades of meaning of a word, preferably with examples, which is exactly what this article does. Look again at Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary entry is about the word, covering in one article all the different ways in which the word is used - as this one does. An encyclopedia entry is about a thing, person, place, concept etc. In Wikipedia, if a word has several meanings, a disambiguation page points to articles on each meaning. If more than one word describes the same concept, redirect pages point to the article on the concept. But this article is purely about the way the word is used, not about the concepts. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this fallacy -- that Wiktionary articles should be limited to what most Wiktionary articles currently look like -- raises its ugly head. Powers T 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no fallacy that Wiktionary has its own style about what its articles should look like and what they should contain - and what this article contains is utterly inappropriate for Wiktionary and would not be accepted there. What is a fallacy (or rather, a misconception) is that WP:WINAD means that words are inappropriate topics for encyclopedia articles. —Angr 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. From Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed.
Some of the OED entries give huge numbers of examples illustrating different meanings and uses of the word. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would this article, if translated into Swahili, have any interest to someone who spoke only Swahili and was not interested in learning English? Encyclopedia articles should be about subjects that have meaning whatever language you speak. An article explaining the many ways in which the word लौंडेबाज is used in the Hindi language belongs in a Hindi dictionary - not in Wikipedia. I would have no problem if the entire article were presented in Wiktionary. There is no policy or guideline that says a dictionary article has to be short. The OED has lengthy articles on word origins, evolution and current usage, and Wiktionary can too. Check the guideline: Wikipedia is not a dictionary
    • Yes it would have interest to a Swahili speaker, in my opinion. You are confusing two things: interest in learning English language and interest in learning about English language. - 7-bubёn >t 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikipedia article describes a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote.
  • A Wiktionary article describes the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote.
In this case, the article precisely fits the Wiktionary definition, and does not fit the Wikipedia one at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are your personal definitions which I consider sufficiently incorrect and vague to make you make decisions many people would disagree. - 7-bubёn >t 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major differences

Wikipedia Wiktionary
Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: petrol and gasoline. warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline).
Articles whose titles are different spellings of the same word or lexeme: are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: colour and color. warrant different articles (e.g. colour and color).
The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data). are to be found in one entry. (e.g. backup).

Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is far more than a definition, and exactly the kind of article we should have. I can probably add some material from An Encyclopedia of Swearing by Geoffrey Hughes (ISBN 978-0765612311). the wub "?!" 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on. Can we please hold off closure on this one? In the next day or two, I mean to transcribe the content into the Wiktionary entry - I don't think I have to rearrange or drop anything, just reformat - and flag it for attention by the Wiktionary editors. For past experience, I know that they are both meticulous and brutally logical. Let's hear what they have to say - we are debating from one side only. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the Wiktionary community thinks is frankly irrelevant here. They can write their articles how they want, and they are obviously welcome to reuse this article (with the correct attribution of course). However that should have no effect on the article on Wikipedia, just as keeping the article here should have no effect on their article. the wub "?!" 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done anyway. See wikt:bugger, and related entries, which now hold the complete content of the article in Wiktionary format. For what it is worth, the initial response from a Wiktionary administrator was "Yep, I saw what you did, it was mostly good". Aymatth2 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-arranged and expanded the article to fix typos, include additional content from Wiktionary and to make the two articles easier to cross-reference. But I will not take responsibility for keeping the two in sync. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can not add all this information to a standard Wiktionary, and the article is much more than just a definition. A piece of culture history, and, it is in my opinion interesting and rather well written.
  • Comment. On the one hand, the article is clearly a word definition that belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is a well written light article, and may be a common search target. Logically, according to the rules, it does not belong. Pragmatically, given the support expressed by several editors in this debate, perhaps it does. Wikipedia is not a dictionary documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. But Wikipedia:Use common sense may also apply. What harm would result from leaving the article in? I would prefer to delete, with a redirect to the Wiktionary page, mostly because I think in an undertaking as complex as building a collaborative online encyclopedia it is best to avoid breaking widely debated and agreed policies for a trivial reason. Trivial precedents can have destructive consequences. This article, from any point of view, is trivial. But it is hard to have strong feelings about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This expresses my opinion quite well. Keep. Thmazing (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bugger&oldid=1069880569"