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 of the debate was No consensus/Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

This was previously nominated for deletion last July, but survived with no consensus. No reliable references or sources have been provided since last year. I believe this is not, at present, a tenable topic for a verifiable encyclopedia article: anything we do write will either be original research, remain unverified or will reference only unreliable sources. To quote the Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

Everyone in England would already know that it does - the practice itself does not need to be verified, it is a verifiable cultural reference.
Comment The article needs a substantial rewrite (to improve style as well as to insert suitable references), which I am happy to do provided it persists past the AfD. Badgerpatrol 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comment I think there is some misunderstanding here. Some voters appear to be objecting on the grounds that the entry is a neologism or 'pure' original research (ie that the original contributor, or a small group containing the contributor and a few friends, made up this term on the spot). Neither is true. 'Soggy biscuit' IS not a neologism. It is a widely-known and recognised name and concept, at least in the UK (as can be confirmed by even a cursory Google search, which returns multiple (thousands) independent hits). One may not have heard of a term, but that does not make it untrue. The question is not 'is this a real thing' but rather 'it IS a real concept, but should it be included in the encyclopaedia'? (ie, can it be verified?). The content is definitely true, but 'actual' truth is not 'objective' truth (ie verifiability). I have provided one ref above, and FGJ has suggested another; there is also the Blackadder sketch. There are numerous pages regarding individual urban legends and modern folklore on Wikipedia. The material should probably be kept in its current form; I feel there is too much for wiktionary, but a move would perhaps be one option as a compromise. As far as I can see, this term now fully satisifes WP:V and WP:OR. Badgerpatrol 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what do these references let us say, exactly? I don't think they even suffice as a reliable source for a definition. — Matt Crypto 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Stephen Fry novel The Liar, and the article should reflect its existance as a rumour and item in fiction, not claim it is a fact. For great justice. 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned or described?--Isotope23 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Described, in quite some detail. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a novel, yes? We can't really use fiction as a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 06:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if that is the source being used to verify this then the article should read "Soggy Biscuit is an act described in the Stephen Fry novel...etc". At that point I would say this should be merged to The Liar.--Isotope23 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - re-write the article to show that it is a cultural reference. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for those of you who are not from the UK, it is not a neologism. It is a cultural reference that appears in numerous places. There are articles for fictional places, people and things, the reason people seem to insist on deleting this is that most americans have never heard of it. That's disapointingly narrow minded. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that it is not sourced per WP:V.--Isotope23 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
That is surely as exact a definition as surely wikipedia needs? As objective evidence, we now have: the Guardian article, which tells us that a) soggy biscuit is an embarassing activity; b) that it is sufficiently notable as to be suitable for inclusion in a major national newspaper without further explanation, the nod and wink conceit being that the reader will already know what it is and will not require further explanation. We have the BlackAdder reference. We also have FGJ's assertion that the game is mentioned in detail in The Liar. Finally, we have the precise definition in a reference work intended for a mass audience. This, as multiple correspondants above have asserted (not just the slightly unreliable anon. IPs), is a widely notable urban legend. I have no doubt, given the widespread notability of this game in British and Anglophone culture, that many other references are available and can be added to the article in the future. I did not have to look hard in order to find the definition above. I really do feel that we now have enough corroboratory evidence to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. There is no reason why this article should be held to higher standards of notability and verifiability (which surely have now been satisfied?) than any other on Wikipedia. It is a real concept, not a neologism, sufficiently notable for most readers of a national newspaper to be assumed to have heard of it, and can be verified with an exact definition. It is encyclopaedic. Badgerpatrol 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at worst merge - is there a page Stupid games people play, with apologies to Eric Berne, who would classify this one a type 3 game I think. It may be genuine - it has been mentioned in a newspaper, although the journalist didn't say what it was, so assuming that he meant the same thing as someone else is ... and assumption ... but it lacks the minimal element of importance sometimes called notability that distinguishes all-inclusiveness from encyclopaedic. Midgley 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think I've outlined the case for notability above. 'Importance' is a subjective term. Notability... -isn't. Badgerpatrol 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more citations, from NewsBank:

"YOU might think nothing would shock rockers Limp Bizkit but you'd be wrong. The American stars are horrified to discover that their name describes a masturbation game known across the world". The Northern Echo: SLEAZE AND BIZKIT Northern Echo, The (Middlesborough, England) April 4, 2002

"It's a terrible thing to do but it is a TV tradition - as is the biscuit game at public schools". Independent on Sunday: First Up: Close to the edit Independent on Sunday, The (London, England) December 16, 2001

"Reading is for idle fops between rounds of the biscuit game" In your face - Comment, Alan Coren Times, The (London, England) December 3, 1999

All such sources are admittedly hearsay, but they are reliable sources to the existence of the meme. Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 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.
More