Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things considered foul smelling


 * 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 delete. I'm afraid the "delete" arguments have this one by a wide margin. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

List of things considered foul smelling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I put this unpatrollled article up for PROD, subsequently removed from that list so taking it to AFD. I contend that this is an entirely subjective, uncompletable, and unencyclopedic subject. "Foul" is in the nose of the beholder and a list of stinky things is little more than an amusement, serving no rational WP navigational purpose. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a wide-ranging list with no inclusion criteria to keep it focused. Dgpop (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: An unfocused and unencyclopedic article if ever I've seen one. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection of sources and you may be sure that there are many more:
 * In bad odour
 * Biomarkers of good and bad food
 * Handbook of Odors featuring the wonderful "Nasal Ranger"
 * The Science Behind Revulsion
 * Breath Odors: Origin, Diagnosis and Management
 * THe Foul and the Fragrant
 * Food Taints and Off-Flavours
 * The Neuropsychology of Smell and Taste
 * These demonstrate that the nomination's claim that the study and classification of smells has no rational purpose is blatantly false. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with the others above. Very subjective. Exactly who considers these things foul smelling. I know people that like Durian. MB 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So then, might I ask, is it banned on public transit in Southeast Asia is it's not generally considered foul smelling? Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. The unspoken truth is that it is socially unacceptable for an encyclopedia to have an article listing bad smelling things even if some scientific way could be used to determine this matter. Which brings me to my next point - too subjective. For example, cod lutefisk is a dish so odorous that is probably wouldn't exist in some cultures. But it is an actual dish in some Nordic countries because many people in those cultures are used to fishy smells. Knox490 (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "foul smelling sources" have been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources". Sources  The sources listed by Andrew Davidson demonstrate "the study and classification of smells" is a serious topic of research so supports the argument that this list is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.  The book notes: "In a larger context, bacteria are responsible for many of the foul odors that we encounter in everyday lives (e.g., sewage, animal waste, garbage and spoiled food, contaminated water, body odor, etc.) Bacteria may produce a wide variety of foul odors depending on the substrates being degraded, and the metabolic pathways involved. It is possible that through our evolution, we have learned to detest these types of odor components as a health hazard warning."  The book notes: "Smell plays an important part in Turkish social life. Smells can be characterized along two axes, foul-pleasant and impersonal-personal. In general, foul smells seem to be organic, that is, the result of some kind of organic transformation. Impersonal foul odors are those arising from the putrefaction of garbage, from animal wastes, and from cooking, especially fish and garlic, whereas personal foul odors are the result of metabolic processes—feces, urine, sweat, and menstrual blood. All foul odors seems to point to the susceptibility of physical matter to corruption and decay, which is a primary attribute of this world (dünyda). The other world (öbür dünya) not surprisingly is a complete reversal of this one; it is characterized as clean and sweet-smelling, and by the absence of both foul smells and metabolic processes. In the other world there is food and drink of an ambrosial sort, but as more than one villager said, 'There is no shit, no piss, and no sweat.' There is sex but no issue, no child. Sex in the other world is recreational; sex in this world is for the purpose of procreation, which is ultimately what this world is all about. All foul odors are considered pis (dirty), and the notion of 'dirt as matter out of place' (Douglas 1966: 35) is apposite here."  The book notes: "CITIES Coping with odours in the USA Between 1840 and 1860, the complaints about industrial odours that the US courts dealt with in terms of nuisance were essentially those of the 'traditional' industries associated with processing agricultural products, the breweries and distilleries, slaughterhouses, bone-boiling and fat-melting establishments, soap-and candle-making concerns and tanneries. The foul smells that led American citizens to regard them as material nuisances resulted from the decay of animal urine, manure, offal, blood, spent distillery grains, the foul smoke and vapours emitted into the air when bones, fats, and offal were boiled, melted, or otherwise processed into soap, neat's-foot oil, glue, and other products, and the odiferous chemicals used to tan animal hides into leather."  The book notes: "The idea of 'bad airs', noxious vapours and polluted waterways took on a very special meaning in the context of certain places or spaces. In urban settings, writers shifted their attention away from the natural environment – elements of altitude, soils, terrain, exposure, wind direction – and focused, instead, on the foul smells of the human environment. Densely packed twons, alleyways, markets, overcrowded houses, gaols, hospitals, ships, workhouses, barracks – the confined and congested places of the poor, the sick and the institutionalized – were often viewed as places of 'a thousand stinks' (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Streams of effluvia and noxious vapours were believed to arise from open sewers, churchyards, slaughter houses, butches' shops and lanes, dead flesh, burial grounds, cesspools and from every other sort of putrefaction, excrement, decay, human and animal filth. The odious, offensive and notorious fountains of stench corrupted the air, created terror amongst the inhabitants, and made the people sick and faint as they passed by. The filthy channel of the Fleet ditch in London was described as 'a nauceious and abominable sink of nastiness' into which the tripe dressers, sausage makers and catgut spinners flung their offal. The townsfolk of Chelmsford in Essex made constant complaints about those who their their 'blude, garbage and guttes' into the river courses 'greatly endangering the health' of residents. Fumes of sea-coal, pollution and waste products, generated by industries, added to the list of noxious smells wafting through the presentments and complaints of many town records in this period. In Norwood in south London, one poet concluded 'you may well smell, but never see your way'. Putrid exhalations might also arise and be contained in such closed spaces as cellars, garrets, cells, common lodging houses, tenements, courts, alleys and alehouses. These were the pestilential black spots, the 'pest-houses of concentrated contagion', 'the foul and loathsome places' where 'the air is much corrupted and infected', 'the sinister abscesses' of towns, the 'close, dirty stinking and infected' places, the 'noisome corners' haunted by plaugues and fevers. These were the urban spaces where 'darkness, dirt and stagnant air combine to augment all the evils resulting from the situation."</li> <li> The book notes: "6.5.2 Odor Problems It is likely that maladors from nearby sources are responsible for more complaints to regulatory agencies than any other form of air pollution. Particularly notable sources of maladors (and, in many instances, citizen complaints) are rendering plants; soap-making facilities; petrochemical plants; refineries; pulp and kraft paper mills; fish-processing plants; diesel exhaust; sewage treatment plants; and agricultural operations, including feedlots, poultry houses, and hog confinements. Maldors associated with such sources include a variety of amines, sulfur gases (such as H2S, methyl and ethyl mercaptan, and carbon disulfide (CS2)), phenol, NH3, aldehydes, fatty acids, etc."</li> <li></li> </ol> The list is not indiscriminate. What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.  The list is not subjective. The inclusion criteria is clear and compliant with the list guideline.  The nominator wrote that "this is an entirely subjective, uncompletable, and unencyclopedic subject". I disagree that the list is subjective. The inclusion criterion is that an entry should be added only when a reliable source says it is or can be a source of foul smells. This can be made more clear by renaming the article to "List of sources of foul smells" or "List of foul smell sources". An editor wrote, "Very subjective. Exactly who considers these things foul smelling. I know people that like Durian." If a reliable source said that durian is or can be a source of foul smells, the list's inclusion criteria would say that durian should be included in the article even if some people don't consider durians foul smelling. The list might never be complete, which is fine. It is fine for the list never to be complete per WikiProject Lists: "Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time. Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the Expand list template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as 'dynamic lists', and should be preceded by the Dynamic list template." For example, List of Italians likely never will be complete. It was discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Italians in March 2016, where there was a strong consensus for retention. The AfD close for List of unusual deaths Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3: "The result was  keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the 'want' for the information in perspective. To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article 'crap', and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter." I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria. General notability guideline There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep as author, I was careful to choose the title correctly with "considered". This isn't a "list of things that definitive smell bad to everyone" it's the consensus of the majority of our population. Not to WP:OSE, but there's List of music considered the worst List of automobiles considered the worst, I bring them up because they too had debates around them and the consensus was simple: if multiple independent sources discuss it, it meets GNG along with WP:SALAT, since the list itself is being spoken about not simply it's items, it should stay. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Foul odor is an encyclopedic topic (as the above references and many more tell), and isn't covered much elsewhere on WP as far as I can tell (not in odor or pungency) - and it's certainly not all subjective. It's possible it might be better to have an article on foul odor or even a lengthy section in another article, but that's not grounds for deletion, and requires more thought than is likely in an AfD discussion. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Odour is certanily a topic, and is not subjective, but what is is saying this smells bad and this does not. That is an interpretation and what this article is doing. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: The whole article is completely WP:SUBJECTIVE, let alone a specific part. This is not independent at all, nor is able to be. Therefore, it fails the WP:NPOV. I strongly dislike the smell of ketchup, finding it foul and intolerable, yet many of my peers love it. This example illustrates how subjective as a topic this is. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is not WP:SUBJECTIVE. The list inclusion criteria is "An item should be included on the list if and only if a reliable source said it is or can be a source of foul smells." This is not subjective. For List of unusual deaths, Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination) concluded that the topic was not subjective because "To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual." This principle is applicable to List of things considered foul smelling. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If one source says it is foul. That is totally subjective, I can (again) say that there is one smell that I don't like and state it in a book. Others can say they love the smell, publish this and we have a conflict! Unusual deaths is less subjective, insofar as it is less common for comment on non-unusual deaths, few sources list usual deaths in any detail so you do not get this sort of dispute. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wrote a book and referenced it, that would be WP:OR. We're talking about widespread consensus by multiple peer-reviewed outlets. Are there ketchup outliers? Absolutely. Can you reference independent significant sources to support that? It's only subjective in that you experience it. Again, it's not about what you find foul smelling it's about the widespread consensus of the general population backed by sources. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  19:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still feel that it misses the point, if one were to write a paper saying that X chemical is foul smelling, and then another saying that X is not, there is a conflict. The ides of smell can't be objectively measured. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. We're not an indiscriminate listing of information, and we are not here to include everything, even if it is sourced. This list is inherently subjective, and no amount of sourcing can change that. Smell itself is inherently subjective and based on culture and also one's mental state at the time. I don't see a reason to keep this list around. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate, subjective, a poster case for WP:ISNOT.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:50, 8 May 2017 (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.