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. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tui (intellectual)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a word that seems to have been mainly used by one person. That does not seem to be very notable. Maybe the information could be included in the article on the person. BigJim707 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though link with Brecht is important, this is merely a dicdef for a made-up word in German. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (or a German dictionary, or a dictionary of neologisms. Delete, and add to Brecht if necessary and/or shift to Wiktionary. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources make it clear this term has been used and discussed by people other than Brecht himself, and this article is not merely a dicdef. (Just because an article's title is a word, that doesn't mean the article is a dicdef.) Angr (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a discussion of a philosophical position and not merely a dictionary definition. Furthermore, Google scholar searches for {Tui Brecht} or {Tui Adorno} find many dozens of relevant papers by multiple scholars (though I admit to having merely read the Google excerpts, not the papers themselves). Cnilep (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you haven't read them, how are you able to say that this "clearly a discussion of a philosophical position"? Brecht, though something of a thinker, was primarily a dramatist and is not known as a leading philosopher. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is, on its face, more than a definition. Notability is a separate issue; the Google hits appear to suggest notability, but without having read them, I take them with the due grain of salt. Cnilep (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bertolt Brecht. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bertolt Brecht as per User:Robertgreer. Topic is inherently linked to Brecht and the article does not establish its use or acceptance at large. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Turandot (Brecht). I had a look for sources, and it does look like this term is only discussed in relation to Brecht. I think this deserves a mention in the main Bertolt Brecht article and a slightly longer treatment in Turandot (Brecht), so I prefer the latter for the redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, unless content is added that clearly shows that the term has been discussed outside the context of Brecht's work. Sandstein 20:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an article about a word. This name for a concept, and the philosophical position it represents and helps to concentrate, that Bertolt Brecht used to talk about early 20th century politics and culture leading up to WWII is an important part of Western thought. This article is significantly more useful and important to a liberal arts student than most of the articles on English Wikipedia. It further establishes the importance of this article that no other single word, and no other English Wikipedia article, exists for precisely this phenomenon: the cowardly, opportunistic pseudo-intellectual (or can someone point us to such an article?). Keep this article on English Wikipedia in order to inform and intrigue all students of politics and culture. — Keith Cascio (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the references are clearly substantially devoted to the subject for they mention it in the very title. In particular, [1] says in the abstract that it discusses the concept with regard to a number of Brecht's works, not just his Turandot. It's time we started taking the humanities as thoroughly as other subjects. I have no objection to our extremely detailed coverage of geography and popular culture--indeed I have strongly supported it in hundreds of discussions here--but there are other things in the world worth attention also. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this needs to be deleted. It seems clear by the references on the page and those cited here that this is an established concept within the context of Brecht's work that relates to the broader range of Continental Philosophy and Critical Theory via specific links to Theodor Adorno. Also, as others have noted above this is a concept for which an English equivalent does not exist. Edunoramus (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2012 (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.