Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional farter

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 rename to Flatulist. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 05:45Z

[edit] Professional farter

Professional farter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Completly juvenile. Only a few people have actually been "notable" for doing this. Only one source as well. Looks like someone was bored when they made this page. Newspaper98 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to be WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BOLLOCKS? flatulists were a bona fide profession at early medieval courts. Just because this sounds 'puerile' today doesn't make it any less notable or true. Try to at least read an article before claiming it is "complete bollocks". dab (𒁳) 11:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the article, and my reaction was "WTF?!" The fact that there's only one source and that I can't see much on Google tends to back me up. So if you do come up with some sources, I just might be tempted to !vote keep. MER-C 11:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• speedy keep. So Saint Augustine, Rabelais or Piers Plowman aren't "sources" now? Completely misguided afd. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • apparent bad faith even, nominator appears to be on an anti-flatulence campaign, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everyone Poops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gas We Pass, two articles afd'd seemingly just on grounds of being in Category:Flatulence. dab (𒁳) 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but... are you serious? Charlie 11:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Forget "inclusionist" and "deletionist": It looks like we now must declare ourselves to be Pro-Flatulence or Anti-Flatulence, or risk being labeled as such. Very well, I support natural processes and oppose plugging the organic flow of digestive processes. Phrrrrt, um, that's a weak keep per sources cited in article and added below. Barno 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If kept, I would support a move to Flatulist with a redirect in the opposite of the current direction. Barno 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. Sorry, I see nothing of value in this article. MartinDK 11:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, long theatrical history but strongly discouraged in Anglo-Saxon culture since at least Victorian times. Several potential sources for a referenced article such as Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart (indexed, cites sources informally) or The Art of the Fart. There's even a scholarly treatment at Broken Air. Perusing references at the articles for blue-linked farters would probably produce more. It's clear just in my lifetime that humor based on farts and other bodily functions has become almost acceptable. Simply because this is an embarrassing or silly subject does not mean it's "bollocks". --Dhartung | Talk 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, move to flatulist, which at least is a term with some historical usage. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, provided historical context, background and notable farters are described. Interesting subject. --Ouro 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I strongly suggest doing research instead of relying on your gut feelings. I apologize if it sounds harsh. AFD is strong medicine, and Googling is so easy. It only took a few nanoseconds to find the St. Auggie quote in an e-text archive. Also, your not supposed to be deleting based on "value", thats a subjective criterion. You have to see if the information is verifiable and notable enough to be found in multiple reliable sources. I don't think keeping "Wikipedia tidy and clean" (on User:Newspaper98 userpage) by deleting articles on best selling children's, books based on their titles and subject matter is useful. You just can't flush away what you don't like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The first two AFD I did were for books I didn't even know existed, so I made a mistake, but what was that, 4 months ago? "Professional Farter" only comes up with 283, without the omitted results included. Alot of the pages I found are jokes too, and alot are also clones of this entry, so this is good faith. I guess I should of stated that before though. Newspaper98 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I really don't like this article but it is sourced and does not meet deletion criteria. TSO1D 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that there are several of this profession notable enough to have their own article, because of this profession, says to me that this definately deserves to be kept. J Milburn 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Flatulist (which is currently a redirect to Professional farter). Seems notable and well-verified. delldot | talk 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It says a lot about the Internet (and the people who contribute to it) that articles about professional farters are so easy to find. Keep but holding my nose doing it... --Eqdoktor 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Flatulist, per delldot. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to the more encyclopedically titled flatulist, with a redirect from professional farter. Ford MF 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to flatulist. Most of the history section seems to tell about fart entertainers, but not necessarily about professional fart entertainers. The original AfD is misguided. There has always been more than one source, even if the references were not collected at the end of the page. Furthermore, the attitude of the original writer (whether he/she was bored or not) is completely irrelevant for the discussion about deleting the article. The article is not juvenile even if the subject matter of the article is.Punainen Nörtti 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are notable petomanes. Charles Matthews 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename, flatulist would be a better name. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:56, 31 December 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.