Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart


 * 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 a snowball Keep. Seraphim Whipp 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fart

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary (see official policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary). We write articles on concepts, not words. The concept of a fart is covered on the Flatulence page; we don't need a separate article discussing only a single word. Powers T 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with flatulence and redirect. 23skidoo 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A surprisingly well-written article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the sources are "ample". The first four are all primary sources used only to provide examples of usage.  The fifth looks like it might be a good secondary source for flatulence, but it's difficult to determine if it's a good secondary source for the word "fart".  The quoted chapter name is "The Honorable Art of Farting in Continental Renaissance", which refers to the act, not the word.  In order to be considered "ample", I would expect the references to include some secondary sources that actually provide analysis of the word.  Powers T 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This word, like fuck and shit, has nuances and ramifications that go well beyond mere synonymy with "flatulence".  The article at issue is a reasonable beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What nuances and ramifications would those be? Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well written article. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön's analysis. Seraphim  Whipp 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this has a concept beyond flatulance. Benea 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands discusses only "fart" as flatulence. What other concept do you mean?  Powers T 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to flatulence, etymology + usage = dictionary entry. Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, I'm afraid it does. What I have done there is to produce an equally valid counterpoint to "No, I'm afraid it doesn't", which was rather a bizarre and unhelpful thing to say, and seemed to simply belittle my vote. On the other hand, the article as it stands, as User:LtPowers more helpfully notes, is little more than a definition.  It certainly has the capacity to be an article along the lines of fuck and shit.  I don't really care enough to expand it though, so either delete it until someone comes along and does so, or don't and let it stay to be expanded to include encyclopedic knowledge. But we don't redirect fuck to sexual intercourse or shit to defecation --Benea 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We should though. They are just glorified dictionary definitions themselves, this one isn't even glorified. Other shit exists isn't a great argument. Recury 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means put them up for deletion then if you feel they should redirect. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is also not a good argument, kindly keep you opinions out of this and come up with some good arguments.  You could say that battleship is a glorified definition, or Ear, or Lighthouse, since those subjects should really just say what those words mean, and so should not appear in an encyclopedia.  I'm really struggling to understand what an encyclopedia means to you. Benea 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles on battleship, ear, and lighthouse discuss the concepts described by those words. This article, on the other hand, discusses a word, with etymology and usage notes.  Etymology and usage notes are the domain of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.  Powers T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As to other concepts, see the terms 'old fart', 'brain fart' (in computer programming), and the concept of 'fart jokes', 'fart videos', even, God help us, 'fart boxes'. Flatulance deals with the medical, biologically processes.  Fart is by far the common terminology in popular culture.  In fact, most of the literature and arts section in flatulance would be better placed here, both to shorten and tighten that article, and to provide the contexts that are provided in fuck and shit, and that make those articles more than dictionary entries.  What is needed is expansion, I agree. Benea 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are some interesting concepts, if by concepts you mean phrases that just have the word in it. Of course there isn't much to talk about besides the word which would probably be why this article is a dictionary definition in the first place. I would love to see the article when you are done with it though, with its section on how it is used in the phrase "fart boxes." Oh, but I think you've hit on something there: "Flatulance deals with the medical, biologically processes. Fart is by far the common terminology in popular culture." Yes! Just like heart attack goes to myocardial infarction and the bends goes to decompression sickness and queef goes to vaginal flatulence! Recury 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was to show how the term has entered popular culture and expanded to introduce concepts not related to flatulance. The article could well be expanded to run through these, which is an aspect lacking at the moment.  As to redirects, as you elegantly point out, ironically other shit does in fact exist, as do cunts and wankers which are not redirects and are fully fledged articles in their own right.  Nominate them for deletion too by all means. Benea 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you raise a good point. From what I can see, the article cunt is an excellent encyclopedia article, wanker a little less so, and shit merely a longer form of fart's current state.  I would not nominate cunt for deletion, but shit could use a lot of improvement.  Fart just doesn't contain anything encyclopedic -- that is, nothing that isn't perfectly suitable for a dictionary.  I'm not saying it couldn't, just that it doesn't.  PowersT 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially there is really little difference between the two. Cunt opens with the etymology and goes on with the usage.  There's a lot more information than fart, but what it does is exactly the same, to deal with the concept.  Fart has a very definite concept.  This is a rather bizarre double standard, where one article can be a 'excellent encyclopedia article' but another article that has exactly the same structure and purpose does not belong in an encyclopedia. Benea 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well "excellent" was perhaps not the best choice of words. I'm not suggesting it's ready for Good Article status.  Regardless, this is not a double standard at all.  If information comparable to what is in the cunt article was in the fart article, I'd probably let it go.  The "Feminist viewpoints" section of the "cunt" article, for example, is a prime example of the type of information that an encyclopedia could include but a dictionary would not.  Furthermore, the "cunt" article contains actual secondary sources, something which the "fart" article lacks.  Powers T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * heart attack = myocardial infarction; the bends = decompression sickness; but a fart is much more than mere flatulence. Alansohn 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And what exactly would that be? And why doesn't the article mention any of that?  Powers T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the article. I see it, as do the overwhelming majority of participants in this AfD. Alansohn 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, multiple times, and I don't see it. It talks about the history and modern usage of the word, along with a few synonyms, one portmanteau, and one metaphorical usage.  Every reference in this article is to flatulence.  Please, even if you think it's obvious, humor me, and quote a reference from this article that involves "fart" meaning something other than "flatulence".  Powers T 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [here, here, here, and here. They're not in the article yet, as I've said it would indeed benefit from expansion.  But not deletion. They ALL refer to fart in a seperate sense to flatulance. [[User:Benea|Benea]] 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We keep or delete articles based on their current state, not potential for expansion, don't we? Powers T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, article about a notable word. J Milburn 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is somewhat interesting. From Medicinenet.com - Fart: This is not an accepted medical word for passing gas. Excess gas in the intestinal is medically termed "flatulence." .  So fart is not even a synonym for flatulance, but a distinct phenomenon, with an etymology, usage and numerous appearances in popular culture, that was developed into areas of everyday use with different meanings, as here about 'brain farts', here for military slang, here for 'old fart', and here for cocktails.  It's appeared in films and music and even a poem called “The Parliament Fart”, written in the seventeenth century and surveyed here.  Benea 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's true, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary definition. The article does more than to explain the meaning of the word, but also provides fairly detailed history of the word, usage of the word, and general attitudes surrounding the word, with a myriad more information that stands to be added. Wikipedia does not have articles about "concepts", but articles about things, be they people, places, books, architecture, or anything else you may think of. As such, there are a few articles about words, and while there are not many of these, because most words do not have sufficient context and information for an entire articles, some words, including "fart", are significant enough that there is both warrant and material for an article. Calgary 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A "fairly detailed history of the word, usage of the word, and general attitudes surrounding the word" are all the domain of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Extremely important word in the English language, with a rich and fascinating history. DWaterson 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just in case it was missed, let me quote from the policy document: In Wikipedia, "[a]rticles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth."  In Wiktionary, "[a]rticles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth."  Which definition applies here?  We need a very strong justification for going against clearly-stated policy.  Powers T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess that the history bit is the main reason for me to say keep, which makes it more then just a dicdef.--JForget 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have sympathy with LtPowers and his viewpoint, which seems to be that an article about a word is not a subject for an encyclopedia, which should be about things and, err concepts. It seems that the consensus is that 'fart' exists as an independent concept however, seperate from the term flatulence.  In this case, I would expect to see it appear in both projects.  The policy you quote is far from clearly stated on this matter.  It certainly does not rule out an article about a word.  The article fart is about the word: its history, its usage, its etymology, its changing nature, its cultural impact, and so forth." would be just as acceptable set of criterion as your octopus example.  And as for not being subjects worthy of an encyclopedia, precedent is also against you, the venerable 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has pages which simply define words and talk about their history, development and usage, as with Fallacy and Recognizance. Benea 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not a worthy subject, just that there is nothing in this article that isn't the domain of a dictionary. Your "recognizance" example proves my point: the article is almost entirely about the concept of recognizance; the discussion of its history and usage of the word is limited and includes only that information relevant to the larger concept.  I honestly don't understand the reluctance here to let Wiktionary be Wiktionary and transwiki this information over there.  Every piece of information in this article is suitable for Wiktionary.  If this article as written is a suitable encyclopedia article, then I don't see the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary.  Seriously: what part of this article is not suitable for a dictionary?  Powers T 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would certainly hope information of this nature is in wiktionary, which would indeed be incomplete without it. Happily it is there for all to enjoy, so we all know what the swedish for fart is (you learn something new everyday).  But the list you quote of what wikipedia articles are is not exhaustive, it deliberately ends with 'and things'.  It leaves the matter open ended.  The consensus is that this term is what you also deliberately vaguely define as a 'concept', and one beyond a mere dictionary definition.  For the difference between what an encyclopedia and a dictionary is, read wiktionary's shit and our shit (so to speak).  At best this a debate over what constitutes a dictionary and an encylopedia, and should be debated at the relevent policy pages, and not using this article as a test case, and at worst, a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Benea 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not using this as a test case -- or at least, I didn't realize it would be a test case when I nominated it for deletion. I had thought it rather clear-cut based on the clear wording of the policy page.  Regardless, if this is kept, the WP:DICDEF policy page will be proven to be inaccurate, or at least woefully incomplete.  Powers T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well written, and well documented. We wouldn't merge "fuck" and "intercourse". I think usage and etymology make it encyclopedic, and beyond a standard dic def. There are several books on the history of single words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton. - Warthog Demon  03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Seems like this fits in with official policy. Viperix 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which official policy is that? Powers T 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of encyclopedia, and is linked to in almost every official policy on WP. Most notably WP:NOT and WP:Five Pillars. There seems to be some confusion as to what an encyclopedia is for, hope that clears it up. Viperix 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:5P also says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." While some encyclopedias contain dictionary elements, an article that is nothing but dictionary elements is not suitable for Wikipedia.  This article, as it stands right now, is nothing but dictionary elements.
 * Of course Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. However, dictionary definitions are limited to the definition, pronunciation, etymology, and sometimes translations, as shown on Wiktionary.  I am inclined to keep this, since this word in itself has a very wide scope, and a whole lot of usages.  Additionally, dictionary entries never include history (if it did, it would be very limited), and this separates itself from a dictionary definition.  What is needed here is an expansion, though. —O (说 • 喝) 00:36, 26 September 2007 (GMT)
 * What is an etymology if not history? And if the article needs expansion, then by all means do so.  Powers T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Etymology is only where the word comes from, i.e. Latin, Roman, etc. History includes that, plus the past meanings of the word and how it was used over the years.  A dictionary definition cannot provide that detailed of a history; it only provides the etymology and the current definition. —O (说 • 喝) 21:07, 26 September 2007 (GMT)
 * Keep but expand into non-definitional format. — Animum ''' |  talk ]] 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - seems to me to be that we agree that articles about words and concepts are wikipedia worthy. Even our nominator, Mr Powers agrees if he thinks the a wikipedia article on cunt is acceptable.  This is not a question over whether an article about fart is acceptable, it is about what the content should be.  The procedure should have been to add a request for expansion template, and not try and write the whole thing off by trying to delete it.  I've really struggled to understand the nominator's reason for seeking the article's deletion.  Tens of thousands of articles on wikipedia need expansion.  We do not delete articles that are just one sentence long.  We expand them.  The article as it stands is the same in structure and approach to other articles he considers wikipedia worthy, and the clear consensus is that the concept of fart is, like fuck, cunt, wanker, shit and twat, distinct, and as it stands, well beyond a dictionary entry.  But not enough for the nominator.  He is quite correct that it could be expanded.  But quite wrong to say that rather than attempting it, an article that does not meet any deletion criteria should be deleted.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  This article is more than a dictionary entry, just like octopus it has to say what it means.  But it is consensually agreed that it is a concept, and as you point out, that definitely IS wikipedia worthy. Benea 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started rewriting and adding material pretty much copying the style of cunt. And I'll stress started since there is a lot more to cover and I've barely begun researching.  Please, give me a good reason why this is not encyclopedic that is not releated to 'there isn't enough in it'.  I'd really like to try and make this all better for you so you could actually live with this article, it would be a bizarre loss if it was deleted just because you have an aversion to articles about words. Benea 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThe article meets standards of notability. LordHarris 21:50, 26 September 2007 (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.