Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP.

The votes were 14 keep, 12 delete. dbenbenn | talk 03:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fart fetishism

I don't believe every weird fetish out there deserves a WP article. I'm unaware of any medical classification of a flatuence fetish, and it doesn't have any cultural prominence that I know of. EventHorizon talk 06:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was interesting to read.--Sonjaaa 07:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Googling "Fart festishism" gets 3 hits. "Fart fetish" gets 8,370 hits, but only 328 displayed. The first ones few pages of results appear to be genuine uses, but the bulk of them are google bait. Kappa 08:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • no vote from me but I will offer the following: " 'Flatulence (Flatuphilia, Eproctolagniac and Eproctophilia - arousal from flatulence) Flatulence refers to the passing of intestinal gas. The French once had a stage act where a performer attracted large paying crowds merely to watch him pass gas. Serious flatuphiles request that their partner release the intestinal gas directly into their awaiting face or mouth." From Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices by Brenda Love. You never know where random reference books that you pick up might come in handy...  :P Dismas 14:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It emphatically is not the "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices", which I am delighted to have remain on Dismas' bookshelf. --BM 14:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article on minor (therefore non-notable) fetish. Fire Star 16:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stripped of the content that appears to be promotion for a pornography site, there is only a dictionary definition left. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Comment: It makes me sad to notice that articles touching on human sexual behaviour are voted to be deleted much easier than articles on other subjects, no matter how unimportant in an "encyclopedic" sense they are. I hope no one makes his judgement by his personal disgust against an article. I addmit that these things have been a problem on Internet. The problem is to find correct and objective information on sexual behaviour related things when wanted and only when wanted, and I see Wikipedia as the best place for this. wikipedia being the worlds number one source for objective information. --Easyas12c 17:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think a general encyclopedia needs to probe the outer reaches of weirdness when it comes to human behaviour in general, or sexuality specifically. For example, I'm sure there are a variety of different forms of Cannibalism, and we could disgust almost everybody (and fascinate a few, I suppose) by having articles describing each of them in detail. This article isn't quite that bad, but flatuphilia must be several standard deviations from the norm of sexual behaviour. If you have some evidence that it isn't, then by all means present it. --BM 17:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are even more obscure fetishes linked from the sexual fetishism page, so a vote to delete here calls the others into question IMO. Hold my nose and Keep. – RJH 19:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you believe any of these articles should be deleted, please list them at VfD instead of accepting them as community consensus. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This vote should not be based on how "weird" this is. It's about notability. There is no evidence that there are a reasonable number of individuals who are sexually atracted to flatus. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That is what I meant by the "outer reaches of weirdness". People are fairly weird in general, and there are plenty of weird human practices that are extremely common and notable, (such as, oh, religion for example). However, something so far out on the fringe that (a) practically nobody does it; and (b) practically no one has ever heard of it -- is not notable or encyclopedic. --BM 21:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If "people are fairly weird in general" then their "weird" practices are by definition encyclopedic - this particular fetish included. I'm interested to known what you mean by "practically nobody does it" and "practically nobody has ever heard of it", considering there has been to my knowledge no scientific study of the practice, so its actual prevalence is unknown, and that people such as myself, who have no interest in the "outer reaches of sexual weirdness" have actually heard of it.--Centauri 02:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I had missed the link to commercially sold videos Starblind mentions below. My mistake. I'm also convinced by Kappa's argument concerning the google bait. But article does need some verification, specially that "fart diary" part. I believe it should be turned into a medical article, not a "look how weird these people are" kind of article. :-) JoaoRicardo 19:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 20:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently common enough that there are commercially-sold videos catering to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. States of the human psyche are inherently notable, even more so for fringe behaviour. And the "no one has ever heard of it" argument is the very reason why such articles are needed in an encyclopaedia. --Plek 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-6 23:19 Z
  • I guess I should vote Keep. The google results are evidence that a significant number of people use this term, even the use as google bait indicates that spammers expect this term to be searched for. Kappa 00:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sexual fetishes are notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 00:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a minor barely notable form of fetish. Megan1967 01:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — J3ff 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough that there are websites devoted to the practice. (I found out by accident - honest!) 23skidoo 04:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard of it before (some Japanese site about it). --SPUI (talk) 05:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be an existing fetish of appeal to some. Capitalistroadster 08:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 18:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Inherently notable. Oops. Delete Denni☯ 02:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • This is real?!? I've either lived a sheltered life or have lived far too long.  :^) Abstain. Just too weird to vote on otherwise. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way to prove the existence of those fart-diaries!! you know it could be some crazy woman promoting her own fart diary :) ... Anyway this is really rubbish and I am surprized that many wikipedians are voting to keep. Omar Filini 11:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Makes you wonder doesnt it? Alas unless more editors vote delete, we're beginning to sound like farts in a tunnel of apathy. An article on farts certainly does stink. Megan1967 09:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Very strange indeed that a fart on wikipedia is more notable than Marco of Alexandria who was voted off as not notable!! Well, if this page passes the vfd then I guess the notability of wikipedia as a whole should come into question. Many other examples like this exist. Omar Filini 11:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • See also [2] (not work safe). This may not be a common fetish, but it certainly exists. --SPUI (talk) 11:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you trying to say that ANYTHING that exists is wikiworthy?? I have seen many articles about entities that Exist get deleted simply because the concensus was that they were not notable enough for wikipedia!! Anyone who votes keep here, must really think hard when he/she gets the urge to vote delete on any other articles. Omar Filini 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently between inclusionists and people who believe essentially that all forms of sexual behaviour are notable and fit for an encyclopedia article, Wikipedia is, in fact, going to be the on-line Encyclopedia of Unusual Sexual Practices. I don't know if this is because fetishists are over-represented amongst Wikipedia editors or whether it is a bending-over-backwards to be open-minded. Hopefully the latter. --BM 17:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • comment It is safe to assume that most people with paranormal thoughts/desires who cannot express them outwardly will seek refuge as anonymous internet users; they usually become heavy users. So it is logical to follow that the percentage of fetishists within the online community is MUCH higher than that of the offline population. This argument could answer BM's question of fetishists being over-represented amongst wikipedians; but could also be used as a supporting notion to Keep the article since wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which serves the online community with all its deviations.I personally don't support this because I think wikipedia should represent the better side of the online community and not the darker. I think that the result will be in favor of keeping the article which is a shame really because wikipedia will lose credibility when an article like this pops up as a random page on some innocent first-time-user's screen. Omar Filini 18:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The whole fart diaries part is unencyclopedic as it seems to be a very minor, non-notable phenomenon (<50 unique Google hits for "fart diary", only 2 relevant hits for "fart diaries"). Ignoring that, what's left is the fact that (1) such a fetish exists and (2) it can be combined with domination practices, and I fail to see why these two tiny tidbits of information should be granted an article of their very own separate from flatulence. — Ливай | ☺ 23:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because there are 8150 reasons to believe it's notable and prevalent.--Centauri 00:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It amazes me how people describe entities as notable or not notable based on google search results! As I said the internet is a great medium for the spread of pornography, especially perverse pornography .. and thus you will find that almost all of your wildest sexual fantasies are found notably by google the great! You will get 105,000 search results for Fart Fetish (Notable) but only 59,000 search results for Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz (less notable) and just 13,700 for Dr Sam Nujoma, The president of Namibia (Much less Notable) ... Does Wikipedia benefit from propagting pornography in the same way that pornographic sites do??? I bet not, but you know, THAT is PRECISELY why you will find so much porn on the web!! not because it is Notable!! but because it is a business!! and no one will pay to read a webpage about Togo's or Algeria's president, simply because they contain REAL factual information that is not for profit and will thus be selectively propagated! so the 8150 reasons argument is truly falacious! if Wikipedia editors will cast their votes based solely on google search results, then wikipedia will just be a well written version of the whole internet with all its rubbish .. and just a few of its gems concealed within the folds of pornographic and commercial information. Omar Filini 01:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can and should reflect the reality of the world as it is, not the world as some people might like it to be. --Centauri 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Centauri I really agree with you, and I believe in including all sorts of information on wikipedia! But when I find that the consensus on wikipedia is to vote to delete notable articles on notable subjects for such reasons as "Not Notable enough" (as has happened with the Marco of Alexandria page, on which we both voted keep) I fail to see how something such as a Fart Fetish could have more notability among wikipedians! if Articles like this get passed while articles like Marco's get deleted simply because google gets more results on Farts; then the whole Notability of wikipedia as I have said earlier will become questionable. Omar Filini 11:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment on the google notability. People are shy when writing on Internet about intimate things? I mean, what is the relation between people who go to the bathroom and people who describe their bathroom behaviour on the Internet. This makes google give less results with appropriate content when searching for fart diaries and other fetish related topics and also emphasizes the shameless commercial side. --Easyas12c 08:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
People are very open about their fantasies on the net unlike real life, many Oppressed desires are openly expressed on various internet channels; the anonymity of the users is what helps them feel safe about disclosing their otherwise socially-tabboo fantasies. Omar Filini 11:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A trivial fetish, but good enough to promote two or three commercial websites. Pilatus 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Carnildo 00:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all trivial fetishes. Wikipedia is an excellent resource of trivial information. GRider\talk 18:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Absolute Rubbish .... Abrahams 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.