Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jugging

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jugging

Unverified and unsourced. At the very least, it is a dicdef and should be transwikied to the Wiktionary (once the correct definition is ascertained). While this appears to be a word (and possibly a sport), I haven't found anything to support the current content. Agent 86 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly speedy delete with A1? Non-notable neologism, if it's anything. Holy cows. That is a quick and wonderful transformation to an encyclopedic article. Keep! Deltopia 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki agree with nomination. To wiktionary! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the rewrite looks good. Keep then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm British and I've never heard of this word. Readro 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm British and I have heard of this word, in the meat preservation context anyway[1] (jugged hare was a widely-known recipe until relatively recently - even Mrs Beeton covers it[2]). That part at least should be merged to food preservation and a redirect kept. The hugging/boobs definition seems rather spurious though. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to transwiki such non-sense. TSO1D 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concerns with factuality and per nom but no need for tranwiki.— Seadog 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this just a definition? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous protologism on the level of Pussing. Danny Lilithborne 05:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Keep since Uncle G worked on it. I did read the whole article before, but I figured the opening paragraphs were just an excuse to work that last paragraph in. Good job. Danny Lilithborne 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Partial merge~~ Keep per ~~Matticus78~~ Uncle G, below. Sentences 1 and 2 were fine (I, too, have heard of this culinary method), but sentence 3 is, to be brutally frank, a load of balderdash! Bubba hot ep 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, fair enough. My culinary knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp. But the last bit falls under WP:BOLLOCKS Readro 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my culinary knowledge can be written on the back of a slightly larger stamp, you know, the type seen as limited edition Christmas specials? However, I do have a few cook books propping up table legs in the dining room! Bubba hot ep 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Transwiki A fine definition can be found here if this is going to be the solution. Bubba hot ep 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki; per nominator's suggestion. --Mhking 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, it's a stub, and there's scope for expansion to things like Jugged Steak, for example. Some editors above appear to have read no further than the silliness about women with large breasts that was appended to the article by 157.203.43.103 (talk · contribs). The solution to that was to simply edit the article to remove the unsourced silliness. It didn't require an administrator to hit the delete button. Keep. Uncle G 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - re: Uncle G's fine work (again) - it should be moved to Jugged, maybe? As all the refs I find are the state of being "jugged" rather than the act of "jugging"? Bubba hotep 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say "Jugged" is the more common noun form. "Jugging" redirect? Bubba hotep 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "jugged" is a past participle. Our article on cooking is not entitled "cooked". ☺ Uncle G 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, but if an article were called "cooked meat", it wouldn't be called "cooking meat", would it? Ah, never mind, I am in deference. :) The redirect you did has much the same effect anyway. Bubba hot ep 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Well sourced article, more info than a dicdef, not a recipe, not a neologism. Edison 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a well-sourced article since Uncle G got his hands on it! And I have changed my opinion to keep for it. Bubba hot ep 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reviewed the edits by UncleG and concur that it is now a verifiable, sourced article, so I'm willing to withdraw the AfD nom. That said, please assume good faith. I made it clear in the nomination that the article, in its then state, was unsourced and unverified, and that I was unable to find either. It was the entire article that I had problems with, not just the final line, as it was all unsourced and unverified. Based on the edits, it appears the term to search for ought to have been "jugged", but that was not apparent at the time. Agent 86 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be the first to jump to your defence, Agent86. I think you were right to bring it here, and it has become a better article for it. No harm, no foul. :) Bubba hot ep 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it wasn't apparent to someone who didn't already know the subject. (One of the things that I came across in my search for sources was a 2006 study in the U.K. that revealed that only 1.6% of people under 25 actually recognized the name "jugged hare".) I was referring, however, to the editors above who thought that "jugging" was yet another nonsense sex protologism. (I understand that one might have thought that the cooking definition was simply there to make the article seem legitimate. But this is in fact a case of a silly sex protologism being tacked onto an unsourced stub.) Uncle G 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than just a definition, has sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - dunno how bad it was when nominated but its starting to get too long and too referenced for an article about cooking now... Ga rr ie 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a factual article! Readro 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should have been more explicit: this AfD can be closed as I'm withdrawing the nom. The article is nothing like the state it was in when first nominated. Agent 86 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - excellent job on the rewrite, Uncle G, so I change my stance from partial merge to strong keep. I've also added a brief paragraph to the article on food preservation (where I originally suggested the merge to) and a link to this revised article therein. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this article has been drastically rewritten and is very good now Yuckfoo 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very nice work to make this a good entry now to Wikipedia. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:06, 14 December 2006 (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.