Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain 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 keep. It is found to be a notable, and verifiable subject, about which independent research exists. The issue of renaming could be settled on the talkpage itself, and hasn't been discussed to consensus here yet, though there seem to be signs that the current title is preferred. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brain fart

Brain fart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The Brain Fart is not an actual psychological or neuroscience concept mcain (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Although I agree this does sound and read somewhat dubiously, the references presented seem authoritative and non-trivial. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• While the cited PNAS article may be fine (though it is not peer-reviewed), that article never mentions the term "brain fart". If the information in this article is deemed good, perhaps it should be moved to another article like Eriksen flanker task or similar. Right now there is a very specific experiment on a page with a general slang term as a title. mcain (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it is not recognized as an official clinical disorder in my view. It's nothing more than a slang term that has been in use for years. ArcAngel (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep an actual phenomenon per the scientific paper mentioned in the external links,[1] for which "brain fart" is decidedly the common name (see WP:NAME) per the secondary source. I wouldn't object strenuously, however, to renaming the article to "maladaptive brain activity change" but that's a secondary issue to keeping the article around. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge The phenomenon sounds more like nodding off to me since the volunteers were lying down while performing a boring task. But it is all grist to our mill. The reason to delete is blatantly wrong since the article describes an experimental result in neuroscience. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would argue that "commission errors under deadline" is a psychological concept, but "brain fart" is a catch-all slang term for "mistake". If the word mistake doesn't deserve its own article, why should brain fart? mcain (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Surely some mistake? The topic in this case is different - it is about a transient mental aberration. The title is not important since a change of title may be made without deletion. If you would prefer to call it Lapse of concentration, say, then you don't need AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but we need more information on the commonplace usage that led to the study. They diddn't invent the term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Such information would be useful. I've always called these mental hiccups myself, which is certainly less vulgar, imo. English borrows almost all it's names for similar concepts of mental phenom from the French (the article on Déjà vu itself lists several more like itself, including Presque vu, and L'esprit de l'escalier). So... anyone know the French word for fart? :-P -- Kendrick7^talk 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The word is pet, whence Le Pétomane, and the perfectly mainstream nickname for the airy beignet, pet de nonne (nun's fart). --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Memory, maybe cover it there with a sentence. I'm not seeing how this article can be expanded meaningfully... sure we could add 100 instances of it being used in pop culture, but really, this is just a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but rename. 'Brain fart' is not an appropriate article title for an encyclopaedia - there must be a less informal name for this phenomenon. Terraxos (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is our policy that article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. There is no requirement for article names to be pretentious or formal. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hate to say keep, it's a valid concept and seems properly verifiable. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to memory (per Rividian).  Frank  |  talk  17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This concept is adequately explained in Wikitionary [2]. There is no additional information that merits a full Wikipedia article, however a redirect might be appropriate as it is a recognised informal (vulgar) term. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (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.