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 Many of the delete comments were based on not liking this article rather than policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (practical joke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

unencyclopedic geek humour Mundilfari (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETENominator's further comment This article is 3/4 references to movies and television shows where this happened. I also picked this article for deletion because it's a particularly embarrassing example of what Wikipedia has become, a collection of fart jokes and Simpsons and Family Guy references. I wouldn't be totally opposed to a merge for this page but the question would be where to merge it. I'd say either flatulence or practical joke.Mundilfari (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment your nomination for deletion is sufficient. You do not need also to say you wish it deleted. I have edited your !vote to show this and made the edit obvious. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination is made on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nomination itself is also a strong case of WP:POINT where the nominator self identifies that it is made "as a particularly embarrassing..." etc. The article is well referenced, with sufficient reliable sources to ensure that it is shown as notable and verifiable. As we keep reminding ourselves, Wikipedia is not censored. This nomination is a misguided attempt at censorship. The suggested merges are banal. How many other practical jokes should be merged to practical joke? And what value woudl it add to flatulence? It doesn't matter whether we like the article or not. There are many articles we don't actually like. What matters is whether the encyclopaedia finds the article notable and verifiable. I submit that it is both of these, and demonstrably so with its citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per not having a good reason to delete. I couldn't have said it better than Fiddle. An article's subject being a "geeky joke" or "embarrassing" simply does not make it an unencyclopedic article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - improper nomination; nominator gives no policy reasons to delete the article, merely stating that he does not think that Wikipedia should be so childish. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may like to look at Talk:Dutch oven to see that the nominator has expressed WP:IDONTLIKEIT quite substantially there. This looks very much to me as an improper nomination, but it may as well run its course until someone closes it. No-one will die if the article is deleted, though it really ought not to be, and Wikipedia will not be harmed if it remains, which it should do, simply on the basis of sourcing. An article may always be improved, and perhaps that will be the outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and perhaps the occurrences could be turned into citations for wikt:Dutch oven at Wiktionary, where that sense already exists but without citations. As an encyclopedia article, the problems are WP:Original research (perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS particularly - does any source actually say "this appears in such and such media" and WP is adding additional examples, or are all the examples being collated by WP?) and WP:DICDEF. Also WP:Notability particularly the WP:General notability guideline and WP:Significant coverage: "sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources here. There appear to be a few dictionary definitions in the references, which suggest that Wiktionary is a more suitable home for it.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Wiktionary doesn't seem to care for having citations to other dictionaries' definitions (though I think that would merit inclusion somewhere there, personally), they look for attestation through usage, sometimes citing to Use-mention distinction. Their standards are quite different there; usenet attestation can be perfectly acceptable and deriving meanings from usage doesn't constitute original research, though they don't care for neologisms and protologisms much. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a sufficiently strong reason to delete it. The article could be improved, yes, but it's harder to improve a deleted article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Flatulence#Social context. Does not appear to have enough reliable sources for notability as a seperate article, but there's enough here to WP:PRESERVE much of the information as a subsection of another article. Some random links to mentions in blogs and the like are not enough to support an article, and even where mentioned in reliable sources, the mention is quite short; far too little for the "substantial" aspect of WP:GNG. There are certainly examples of the event occuring in fiction and other places, but there just doesn't seem enough for a seperate article. The material is good, but would be better served as part of the article on flatulence. --Jayron32 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while I agree with the nominator in that articles like this make me shake my head, one man's ridiculousness is another's seriousness. It appears to be covered by multiple references which directly address the topic, but which are independent of the topic. In the absence of other consensus stating that it is not significant, it appears to meet notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I'm going to put the heat on you by setting this question on the front burner: to be clear, which references are reputable, authoritative, and "in detail" and more than just passing (gas) mentions? Please don't remain silent (but deadly) on this matter, or blow smoke up our asses. Oh, besides the guidelines and policies I cited above, I'll also mention WP:Avoid neologisms. All the keeps that don't address these issues are entirely irrelevant. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I am required to answer such a question, but I will take a stab at it:

The first reference dates to 2005 (I have no clue what the statute of limitations on being a neologism is, but this sets the term to at least five years, so it isn't exactly new. An (albeit small) section of the book appears to directly address it. I am throwing out the next two references, repeated and dictionaries. The fourth reference is solely about this topic, and (albeit) it is a college newspaper, I think college newspapers are considered reliable sources at this site. The eighth reference notes that it will be in the title of a forthcoming game. Those are three references which appear to be reliable, two of which are pretty direct in addressing the topic, and that seems to be at least a weak assertion of notability. I will not shed a tear is this article is deleted, but from where I am standing, it appears like there has been a minimal shot at asserting notability. I agree that the sources are perhaps not the most reputable, but they are secondary sources.

Now ... if the notability rules were rewritten ... that would be a whole new ballgame. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm seeing more than a handful of references to texts that would seem to establish notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There are numerous references, and while "reputable, authoritative and in detail" is borderline, the sheer number of them help. The "Ren & Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon : Dutch Oven" is clearly "in detail", since the whole game is devoted to the article subject. The game isn't reputable by itself, but it is reviewed by the Animation World Network, which is. The numerous advice columns aren't in detail, but are authoritative, and somewhat reputable. The remaining trivia references don't hurt. --GRuban (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added a link to the previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch oven (slang), which appears to have been closed as Delete as fartcruft.--kelapstick (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it makes it a slam dunk for notability, but apparently Dutch oven (the prank) is noted along with pole-dancing (which also has an article) in the Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel movie. <insert shock and outrage here>

Also it's noted in the "Now what? After a certain age, say 20, only men find farting funny" article in the Jun 3, 2002 New Statesman, but all I can get is tidbits about "... morning being grabbed, shoved under the duvet and given a "Dutch oven". ... Yet this week I have hooted and commented on every fart venturing from the..." without dispursing $4.95 for a full in the face viewing.

A merge was considered, but I think the consensus was that it would be weighty to fit in the flatulence humor article and also that it wasn't necessarily (or purely) humorous, but more of a prank. How do we determine if in fact it's funny? We may need volunteers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Improper AfD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an acceptable reason for deletion. There's a whole lot of stuff more unencyclopedic than this around here. Trusilver 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason stated, and it's sourced. Aside: I came here because it was used on a skit last night on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien and I didn't know the joke.—DMCer™ 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Improper use of AfD. The article is sourced, verifiable and factually sound. Whining about something a particular editor doesn't like is not grounds for deletion. Wayne Hardman (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have stated my position on this article, but, in what might appear to be a contradiction, I think that saying this is a misuse of an AfD or that it was improper is strong. Irrelevant of the nominator's disposition (which I do not fully disagree with) the references are, in my opinion, enough to establish a weak notability, but I think it is far from obvious that the references are particularly strong enough to establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously. ALL the comments above which only say "keep improper nom" or little more than that can (ironically) be disregarded, or should cross their legs, hold their gas, and hope for a vote-counting closer. Arguably speedy flush G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion per Kelapstick's finding. Potential for cites for Wiktionary, not for an encyclopedia article if all it can say is "a dutch oven is farting under a sheet to annoy or amuse your partner. Here's some places Wikipedia editors found that use the gag:", followed by said list. WP has that kind of DICDEF "article" out the wazoo, clinging like dingleberries when it should instead drop those kids off at the pool. WP:NOTTOILETPAPER: OK for Fartipedia maybe. Anyhow, I'm not anti-fart; Flatulence humor is something which an encyclopedia article legitimately can (and has been) done or Flatulist or Ben Franklin's Fart Proudly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that an AfD from 2006 does not mean that the page is the same as then, nor should it be speedied. Keep in mind that consensus can change. Also, here it states "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well". The article needs to flesh itself out from the sources a bit, but it does provide information on how this joke affects relationship dynamics, a decidedly not dictionary-ish topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Scapler is right, this is not eligible as a G4 as it would have to be sufficiently identical and unimproved, which (without seeing the previously deleted article) I am willing to assume that this is not. I simply added a link to the previous discussion for transparency purposes, not as advocation for deletion.--kelapstick (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dutch oven (practical joke) is completely different content from Dutch oven (slang) (same topic, but very different content). G4 does not apply here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hardly encyclopedic material. Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reasonably well known, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't really a valid argument for nominating it. I think the article is decently sourced as is, and I'm confident there is enough significant coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Practical joke - it's a non-serious topic, it's been deleted before, and it's never gonna be more than a stub dictionary definition. RayBarker (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (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.