Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon mania


 * 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. And potentially rename. After reading through the discussion, I've found no consensus to delete. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon mania

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This topic is about a non notable neologism. Further some of the sources used to support the topic, while reliable, often don't even use the term "bacon mania" in them or use the term "bacon mania" only in passing. The article is really the product of original synthesis. There is not enough independent coverage of this term where the term itself is the main subject of the source to establish notability. It appears that this is a media buzz word which may or may not have a lasting use. Other media has chosen the term "Bacon Nation" instead of "bacon mania". If you notice, all of the sources using "bacon mania" are from the last several months, so its a very new term. Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a better title I'm open to considering it. The phenomenon is clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Merge and redirect to Bacon. There seems to be some legitimate content here, but I see no reason for it to stand as a separate article. 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Comment - I made that m&r comment. I have no idea why I got logged out when it posted. (I'd been logged in and editing just prior!) Aleta  Sing 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the bacon cabal is involved in an interweb conspiracy that has clogged your computer's arteries? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, no, but if you are admitting to it... Aleta  Sing 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. As the nominator I agree that a lot of the content is valuable. A better article might be titled "Bacon in American culture". Obviously some of the content would have to be changed accordingly to fit the new topic.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth considering a retitle/move, but I think the present name is well sourced, short, and best reflects the article contents. The article isn't really about bacon in American culture, but about bacon mania, a crazed enthusiasm for bacon and the absurdly preposterous and somewhat grotesque dishes that can be created with it.  I think bacon in American culture is a is a very worthy topic, howver, and I hope you'll write that article. Bacon is a much neglected area of study and the lack of coverage for all things bacon on Wikipedia is deeply troubling. Hope is on the way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —<b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing  04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect I don't think it needs its own separate article, the valuablecontent in it only can be merged into Bacon. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Bacon (meme) - The topic is notable per the multiple references in the article. A rename should be discussed, either here or on the talk page, since the current name is leaning toward original research.  Perhaps a better name would be Bacon in American culture, Bacon in popular culture, or Bacon (meme).  I oppose merging to Bacon, because it would give undue weight to this meme in the bacon article, unless it was ruthlessly trimmed down to a couple of short paragraphs. Since there is enough material for a stand-alone article on this, we should have an article on it. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that this Salon.com story titled bacon mania is from the middle of 2008 and is very substantial coverage.  If anyone is vegan or kosher I think they should disclose that conflict of interest when voting. I've been planning to do a facon bacon article for some time if that helps (first I have to finish working on the turbaconducken). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That article is not really substantial coverage. The only time "bacon mania" is even used is in the title. The term is therefore not really discussed at all. Now if the article had actually used the term in a sentence it would be a much more useful and substantial source.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the article's closing paragraphs, quote: The turkey is the unofficial mascot of Americana, the 20-pound plumper we dutifully cook on our most sacred of national holidays. But really, it should be the pig. Bacon is our national meat. The pig is not an elegant animal, but it is smart and resourceful and fated to wallow in mud. A scavenger. A real scrapper. 
 * "I see bacon as a celebration of an American birthright," says John T. Edge. "Four slices of Hormel Black Label, hissing in a cast iron skillet on a Sunday morning. To wear the bacon colors, to sport a bacon tattoo, is to announce your belief in the possibilities of bacon, in the American goodness rendered by a low-on-the-hog meat, transmogrified by smoke and salt." What do you think this article is about if not the bacon mania of a bacon nation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a title for an article about bacon within American culture. I doubt the author was intending to use "bacon mania" as an actual defined term.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the term in the title is fairly well established, but I also would not oppose a renaming per the Linguist's comments. As for the content, the phenomenon has much less to do with bacon than with American attitudes toward food, health, and other abstract nouns. Bacon has been called the ultimate democratic food, for crying out loud. (Disclosure: I wrote that section in the main Bacon article, which some vandal obviously renamed to "Bacon in popular culture.") Seriously, there is so much of this right now in the US (Baconlube, anyone?), and sure, that's ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than calling American Idol a talent show. It's a topic, and it's established, and it has been written about often enough. (Disclosure: I did NOT eat any bacon this morning, in order to approach this AfD in a fair and balanced way.) Drmies (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I renamed "Recent bacon popularity" to "Bacon mania" last week, thinking they were the same thing (if that is what you were talking about).--kelapstick (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, indeed, you vandal. BTW, after plowing through a number of references in Bacon mania I'm convinced now that "Bacon mania" is the proper title. I wish the editors below who are proposing merge and delete would actually look at and respond to those references. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... I have read through all the sources. I've just come to a different conclusion than you have.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge anything referenced to Bacon. -- BlueSquadron Raven  22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bacon mania may be a neologism, but it is certainly a notable one with five reliable sources reporting on it, using that exact name.--kelapstick (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is hopelessly original synthesis in addition to being a neologism. Any relevent material can be merged into bacon.Inmysolitude (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles on neologisms are appropriate when it is a notable neologism, like this is. See WP:NEO. About original research, can you explain exactly why you think it's original research? —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, article smacks of an April Fool insert --Snowded (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just look at the accompanying summary for the article's creation. -- BlueSquadron Raven  21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A small joke in an edit summary between a group of editors who refer to themselves (with tongue-in-cheek) as the bacon cabal, and have created articles such as Chocolate-covered bacon, Clams casino, Chicken fried bacon and bacon explosion (all of which were featured on the main page as DYKs), hardly suggests that this article is an April Fool's day prank, especially when the article was created on March 24th.--kelapstick (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete original research? Synth? Take your pick. COntent fork from Bacon absolutely. Unencyclopedic and a joke at Wikipedia's expense? Of course.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have an opinion on this, but am so strongly addicted to bacon that, alas, I question my own objectivity. (Full disclosure: I have been known to deep-fat fry bacon). Edison (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete sourced content (of which there is much). Merge + redirect to Bacon (probably a separate section) or keep. Bongo  matic  05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or rename as suitable for improving wikipedia, where bacon products have an inherent notability. I do not always agree with Bongomatic, but I certainly can here, where deleting sourced content is never in the best interests of the project. Further, San Diego Union Tribune, Creative Loafing Atlanta, ABC News, The Insider, San Francisco Bay Area Digest, and Salon Life would seem to be indiative of this term being itself in use.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Almost all of those sources are trivial mentions of the term, most of which only use the term in the article's title. The first source actually references the wikipedia article on bacon mania. Not exactly reliable media reporting there. Many of these are simply advertisments. None of this is substantial enough to lend weight towards making this a notable neologism.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The depth and cohesiveness of the article speaks for itself. The links I included were in no way intended to be used to source the article, and offered simply to WP:Verify per WP:Policy the fact thet "Bacon Mania" is not a neologism, is not a "new" word, and is in fact an existing term used in the media even if one makes the (percieved) error of itself refering to wiki when trying to make their own report as balanced and inclusive as possible, but then... they have far different criteria for inclusion than does wiki... so that must be respected. And with your statement above, I do not think ABC News, The Insider, and San Diego Union Tribune can be discredited.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is not to discredit the News sources but to point out that the majority of these sources use the term in a highly trivial manner. For example, the ABC News source never even uses the term "bacon mania". Its just the title of the video which follows a News story on a bacon cooking competition. As I said above, the sources use the term in such a trivial non-substantial way that notability can't be established.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My own view, and in partial agreement with you, is that the title "Bacon Mania" is simply that... a title... 2 words used in the wiki article and many reliable sources to describe a growing cultural notability. I also feel that the extensive coverage of the notability as described in reliable sources, even ones that do not use that specific title, gives it the foundation for encyclopedic inclusion in these pages. The title of the Wiki article might change, but the well sourced substance of the article stands up to scrutiny.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no doubt that much of the article's content could be used in another wiki article on bacon in American culture (see my comment above). I just don't think the term "bacon mania" is notable enough to warrant its own article.Broadweighbabe (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can at least agree to disagree and both keep a smile. The individual article describes a cultural phenomena and is itself well sourced and encyclopedic, no mater the final name it will wear in these pages. Guideline allows and recommends it may exist as a seperate article if inclusion of the article's information would gravely overburden the more generic parent bacon article. If it was unsourced, or could not assert and show notability, I'd probably be opining delete. But since that is not the case....  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As the article's creator I've followed the discussion (and participated in it). I have no objection to a retitle to Bacon in American culture if that's the consensus. It was originally titled bacon in popular culture, but other editors felt the title suggested TV, film, music and other pop culture significance which isn't what the article is about. There is a lot of sourced content in the article. It covers the very notable "mania" as its called that is a function of bacon's popularity with a segment of American culture. I oppose the merge because there is too much content and it would overwhelm bacon and it's too U.S. focused for that more general article.  Have a nice day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Bacon. I suggested doing this on the article's talk page while the article had a different name.  I'm not sure that this phenomenon is notable in itself or if the term "Bacon mania" is referred to in reliable sources, but this information is encyclopedic and will bolster the Bacon article immensly.  Them  From  Space  07:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename to Bacon in American culture per nom. I don't think a merger is really doable here, at least not easily. The problem is that much of this is original synthesis and any merger is therefore going to require a substantial re-write. Its requiring a lot of the closing admin to weed through all the material and basically re-organize it all. Further, any merger should avoid using the term "bacon mania" per WP:Neologism.Nrswanson (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/renameIt's funny, yes. It's somewhat obscure, yes.  But it's fine.  It's a real phenomenon, well sourced, and delicious. Huadpe (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article's title is not a neologism as there is no new word here. The title is a descriptive phrase whose meaning seems plain enough and so conforms to WP:NEO.  In any case, improvement of the title is not a reason to delete as changes are effected by a move which any editor may perform.  And I can confirm the notability of the topic as I have seen news items about it myself in London. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into a section in bacon and redirect. This will improve both articles. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While a merge is sometimes a suitable compromise, inclusion of this article's information would gravely overburden the more generic bacon article. The individual article describes a cultural phenomena and is itself well sourced and encyclopedic. Guideline allows and recommends it exist as a seperate article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better myself. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I really don't think an article on Bacon mania should be on Wikipedia. Maybe take a couple of the bits into Bacon, but it really should be deleted I think! dottydotdot (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dotty, we would appreciate your reasons for why you don't think this article should be here. Please see WP:DEL. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the topic is well-covered in reliable third-party sources, the article crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, and the article is properly referenced. Combining with with the bacon article would imbalance that article on a basic foodstuff.  Renaming is a possibility but that is a discussion to be held elsewhere, not at AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the exact time to consider a name change or merger. Right now a broader spectrum of readers has just given their opinion on the article. That's not likely to happen on the article's talk page, particularly with the canvasing that goes on on bacon pages.Broadweighbabe (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has Dravecky been canvassing in favor of bacon? Shocking! We all need to make sure we treat all foods fairly and equally, no matter how magical and wonderful they may be. It's vital that we ensure Wikipedia's impartiality and that we hold ourselves to the highest standards. This is the best way to make Oscar Meyer Jimbo Wales proud. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Dravecky has but other editors have. See this observation made by another editor above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I plead guilty to bribery, though I'm not sure if it amounts to canvassing; WP:Canvassing (see footnote 1) does mention solicitation, but does that apply here? Anyway, it was extended in the best of spirits, win or lose, and you are included in this offer, Broadweighbabe. Especially bacon cabal members need levity; our earthly mass tends to weigh us down more than others, especially given the new addition of chocolate to this "yummy" food, as one editor called it. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not made any sort of contact with any editor about this article not has any editor contacted me on this matter. I spotted it only because it had been nominated at DYK and while it's true that I do enjoy yummy bacon, my !vote above was made entirely on policy grounds as stated above.  (Apologies will be accepted graciously.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. An illustration of that kind at an AfD and an offer of bacon as a form of vote buying and bribery is highly unusual and irregular. It also lards up the discussion. I'm glad that Dravecky wasn't involved, and I apologize if I in any way implicated him or associated him with any sort of impropriety. I trust he will stay on the straight and narrow and refrain from any efforts to grease the wheels of this AfD process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, by now I'm too fat for the straight and narrow, especially since I recently discovered the Baconator. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never intended to imply Dravecky had either, I just meant to point out that canvasing had gone on and that this consensus was more likely to draw an impartial conclusion than one on the bacon mania talk page.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you Broad. But you might be surprised. I don't see any strong objections to a rename.  I'm not 100% sure it's superior (the current name seems pretty focused and well sourced) but I can live with Bacon in American culture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite legitimate quibbles about the title, the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the notability of the phenomenon. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well-sourced and sources show the title is used correctly. Lawshoot! 03:17, 8 April 2009 (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.