Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumpsimus


 * 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. Consensus after revamp and relist including nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mumpsimus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I proposed deletion on 1 February. My rationale was, "The article consists of a definition, etymology, and short set of examples. Per WP:NOTDICDEF such dictionary-style content is better suited to Wiktionary. It is already there, at mumpsimus." Prod was removed on 11 February by DGG, who noted, "there seems to be not dictionary content here, prod declined."

I stand by the prod rationale. I will go further to note that there are six sources cited: Two are dictionary definitions of 'mumpsimus', one is a dictionary definition of 'eggcorn', one is an example of a malapropism, and two are examples of mondegreen. Despite this article's unsourced and tenuous assertions, there is no necessary connection between eggcorn, malapropism, or mondegreen and mumpsimus. The former are types of errors; the latter refers to persisting in an error after it has been pointed out.

I submit that the article is a dictionary definition, and that at least with the information and sources currently available, it is unlikely to become anything more. A Google search, for example, turns up dictionary definitions and a few language-related blog posts (plus blogs called "The Mumpsimus" and "Mumpsimus blog"), but little substantive content that is not about the word as such. Cnilep (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as DicDef, per nominator. I scanned about the top 70 hits off Google and there are lots and lots of dictionary definitions of a swell word, but no apparent indications of scholarly or pop culture concern outside of that. It is unlikely that an encyclopedic article can ever be created on the topic. Striking in light of excellent work done. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like someone is trying to promote a new umbrella term for "eggcorn, malapropism, spoonerism and neologism". —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me per extensive coverage in non dictionary books.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * weak Keep Dr.B asked me to look at this, for I deprodded it. Before his additions, I was in considerable doubt about whether it was a neologism. But he's done enough to show that it is an established concept, though really just based on a probably mythical story. I agreewith the nom that the examples that make p the second part of the article are irrelevant content here. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is an interesting history to this word, as shown by the number of books that discuss not just what it means but where it came from and how it has been used by different authors. An unusual and notable cant word. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Great expansion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, Dr. B, you've been around long enough to know that you can't vote twice. Anyway, I also say Keep after the work done. Luke no 94  (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion was relisted which means the keep vote is needed again.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never come across it being needed again. :) Luke no 94  (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. I was on the fence before, but the expansion clinches it. The current sources in the article seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the nomination, with thanks to Aymatth2 and Dr. Blofeld for significant additions and improvements. Cnilep (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2013 (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.