Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navel lint

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 SPEEDY KEEP. Nobody wants this deleted any more, so we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navel lint

I would say non-notable - and I would tend to lean towards the view that being the subject of an Ig Nobel Prize would tend to confirm this rather than give any basis or grounding for an article. Only sources are seemingly non-notable sites. The tone isn't exactly encyclopedic either, and I would say delete. No more bongos 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article's claims at least cursorily look correct and the sources support it. I will grant that the second link is a bit gratuitous. My Alt Account 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) -- addendum, I really don't know how to address notability with this type of content, but suffice it to say I'm not concerned. At least in this case. My Alt Account 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just don't see myself why it is a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Counter-arguments on the talk page have included the presence of such articles as Exploding Whale - but while this has received non-trivial press coverage, the only press coverage Navel Lint appears to have received is in connection with the Ig Nobel prize. Surely there's a reason why these prizes are awarded? If it wasn't for the prize, the first link would also be viewed as gratuitous and non-notable, i'm sure. I'm open to any valid reasons to keep, however - i'm just realising that those last few sentences could be interpreted by some as overbearing... - should I write articles on Exploding trousers; Artificial dog testicles; Television viewing by locusts, or communication among herring by farting? --No more bongos 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't the sort of subject you can evaluate based on the number of news articles. Aerodynamics, Ballistics and Capacitors get no non-trivial press coverage, but they all deserve articles. We're not talking about people, organizations, or historical events here. Happily, much of the treatment of navel lint presents no verification obstacles, since the subject matter is so near at hand... My Alt Account 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, what I should have said was "press or academic". I would, myself, immediately define a study into it which won an Ig Nobel prize as being trivial. Others may disagree, though. I do see what you're trying to say, but I still think it has no place as an article of its own. Claus Diff's suggestion to merge seems like a possible compromise, and if consensus heads that way, I wouldn't have a problem. --No more bongos 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• looks like it should merge into Umbilicus. Claus Diff 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Everyone has heard of it, and the article goes well beyond a dicdef. There's actually a lot of weird stuff to say about navel lint, both in terms of its color variations as well as the things people do with it. Zagalejo 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are similar articles. in at least 5 other languages. Zagalejo 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, ubiquitous substance. Kappa 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I was sure that this would be an easy article to delete, but, lo and behold, the article actually addresses the subject in an encyclopedic fashion. I guess I may lose a title for a sample article that is a sure bet for deletion, but this article should stay. Ig Nobel or not, the research was done and the info regarding the scholarly work in the field is from verifiable reliable sources. Alansohn 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I know some people are annoyed at how this is turning out, and I can sympathize. But look at the bright side - there's no way Brittanica's treatment of navel lint is anywhere near as informative as ours (someone verify please). My Alt Account 16:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a verifiable phenomenon with sources provided in the article. --Whpq 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn - Close Please - There seems to be a consensus to keep, so to save a long, drawn-out argument, I'm withdrawing the nomination. This isn't to say that I agree with the arguments to keep - I firmly believe the consensus reached is the wrong one. This is entirely without prejudice to any further AFD, either by myself or somebody else. Nevertheless, I would like the nomination withdrawn, as I have no desire to get into lengthy arguments, or to waste editors' time with bloated AFD discussions. No more bongos 20:20, 11 September 2006 (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.