Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory

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 of the debate was Delete and Redirect - CrazyRougeian talk/email 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory

One "theory" from one Ann Coulter book; not inherently notable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, certainly does not merit its own article. IslaySolomon 03:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but I'm new and don't know how to express that in the proper way. It's not really a theory, but a fanciful concept to help in thinking about a controversial and scientifically difficult subject. Notable as a challenge to orthodoxy from an increasingly important author. Notable because quotable -- thousands will read or hear about the giant raccoon and not know what it means. (It's defined only once in the book, but referred to several times.) Better for them to find it here than to try to find it in a 301-page book that they have to own or borrow to read. At least as notable as many of the wonderful but obscure CD titles in the encyclopedia, or much of the way cool fantasy game stuff (which is also "fanciful," of course). At least as notable as Nox Bailey Shield or Libby Riddles, or any of the magical locations in the Harry Potter etc. stories, many of which have their own articles. Lou Sander 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we created an article for every catchphrase she tries to create we'd have hundreds of them. Mention it in her article, but it doesn't deserve its own. It's already discussed in the article on the book. Fan1967 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The magical locations from Harry Potter are widely referenced. Ms. Coulter's "theory", well...isn't: [1][2][3]. --IslaySolomon 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ms. Coulter's book came out, um, 27 days ago. The article was created, well...a few hours ago. Google suggests the alternate spelling "Giant Raccoon Flatulence." [4] (Coulter would say "But you knew that.") [5]
• The "discussion" in the article consists of a single mention in a direct quotation from the book. Lou Sander 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• So, you're admitting upfront that this bit of nonsense is brand-new and no one's noticed it yet? That sounds like it's, hmm, non-notable. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Searching without the quotes brings up a lot of totally irrelevant entries, sites that have those three words, but not in order. Searching for "giant raccoon flatulence" brings up two blogs, but then, maybe "you knew that"? Fan1967 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable political theory from one person's book. Ann Coulter is notable, this theory isn't. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• If I could, I'd vote to delete it purely on the basis that it's the stupidest analogy I've heard all year, but fortunately I can urge delete on the grounds that it's an utterly non-notable stupid analogy. --Calton | Talk 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question The tag on the article says it's being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion policy. I've searched that policy and found nothing about notability. Am I looking in the wrong place, does the policy need to be updated, is it the wrong tag, is there a non-neutral point of view in the article or somewhere close to it, or ???? Lou Sander 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply non-notable. -- GWO
• Keep, doesn't belong in any other article. Allow for organic expansion. —Pengo 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, although it could go into an article on logical fallacies under the categories of straw man and ridicule (actually a whole book on the subject could be made using examples from her and Michael Moore, the king of correlation implies causation and guilt by association). -- Kjkolb 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, add one sentence to Ann Coulter article. NawlinWiki 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's just the standard argument from incredulity dressed up - does not require and does not match the requirements for it's article. --Charlesknight 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ann Coulter Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Not an impossible search term, given Ms Coulter's popularity. Tevildo 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ann Coulter. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If we're going to merge this (and I must say there doesn't appear to be much usable prose in the article) then perhaps we should merge to Godless: The Church of Liberalism, the book from which the phrase comes, instead? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything worthwhile to add from this article that's not already covered there. Fan1967 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, good idea. I think we need to keep some sort of reference to the phrase, but I agree that it doesn't deserve its own article. Tevildo 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Once this has had its full time for comment, and assuming the trend to delete continues, the Raccoon should go to the article on the book, and I'll be glad to move it. Once there, it will be subject to twisting and distortion by those who see a commercial for whacko "creation science" in every Coulter word. While it's in its own article, it's hard for them to do that, since there aren't any "creation science" quotes to illegitimately tie it to. It's a fanciful/critical/controversial analogy of Darwinism, not a commercial for "creation science." Not a "political theory," either. Lou Sander 17:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Possibly it could be merged with Flying Spaghetti Monster, since it seems to be a broadly similar theory with some weird POV crap attached. Artw 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I have a serious question about the above comment. The Raccoon quote is parsed and its meaning is carefully explained. It illustrates the position of an important author about the origins of life on earth. Yet people call it "POV." And dismiss it on that account. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I see quite a lot of "I don't agree with it, so it's POV." Isn't the notion of "POV" that the editors should keep their points of view out of the articles? And isn't the point of that that the points of view of the people covered by the articles get a fair and unbiased hearing? Lou Sander 23:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Seriously, it's not her position about the origins of life on earth. It's a catchphrase she made up to ridicule others' opinions. There's a big difference. The main point, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a particular method of ridicule that's caught on, even with the creationist movement in general. It's worth a mention as part of the article on her book, but doesn't seem to have achieved any notoriety separate from it. Fan1967 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Seriously, stipulating all that you've said, what about point of view? Lou Sander 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Personally, IMNSHO, I don't see POV as being relevant here. Clearly, POV is a problem with anything about this person, but on this particular issue, I think the only relevant argument is that it's a phrase that nobody's picked up on, that hasn't spread, and doesn't deserve an article. (I don't think any analogy to FSM holds up either.) Fan1967 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the "allow for organic expansion" argument, and the other "keeps", make the assumption that this "theory" will become notable in the future and a place should be set aside for it until then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen that "allow for organic expansion" comment in other AfD's, and it seems to always mean "Keep this; it may become notable someday." Fan1967 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Artw 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Giant raccoon as well. Artw 05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is a passage in a book and the "theory" itself has not received wide coverage. JChap 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Coulter article, if the person merging the material can somehow work it into the article without it being too jarring.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not particularly important, even within the context of the book. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable -- 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete (even merging and redirecting would be too much). Quite apart from the fact that Coulter's point is utterly uninspired (I'm sure that the flat-earthers had some wittier responses to Darwin in the 19th century), it is also totally obscure. A Google search for "giant raccoon" and "Coulter" delivers 19 results, out of which 5 are being displayed. That's pretty poor for an internet meme, which this "theory" is apparently designed to become. However, I'm sure it will soar up in no time if, and only if, it is allowed to stay here, due to Google's favourable weighting of terms with Wikipedia articles. --Thorsten1 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to Godless: The Church of Liberalism; there are no multiple non-trivial sources for this theory, so it fails verifiability requirements. nn. Ziggurat 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not justify its own article. At best it merits a line in her bio article, or the book it was taken from. No merge/redirect. - Motor (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Godless (book). It's not nearly as interesting or relevant as the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. --Wing Nut 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, it belongs in the article about the book. For it to deserve its own article it should be a widely discussed concept. This is not. Gamaliel 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this isn't encyclopaedic content, and I don't see how it can become encyclopaedic. Guettarda 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced so at present it is OR. BlueValour 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is now the beginning of an intense debate over Wikipedia policy. See Controversial Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.30.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: That "news" site allows contributions from anyone. Which is of course a crazy philosophy! Such a thing would never work! ;-) But seriously, it fails WP:RS by a long shot and the article was created just a few hours ago, quite possibly by someone involved in this very debate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP, for God's sake, KEEP! The raccoon is a poor, dumb animal, whose usual claim to fame is being run over on the highways of America. Now that a giant one has a notable "theory," even if it's couched in terms of a fanciful free-verse epigram, and now that he has been credited by a noted author with being the source of the flatulence that is in turn the source of all life on earth, the speciesists want to banish it from a free forum of ideas. This is animal cruelty that even Ann Coulter at her worst wouldn't even contemplate. O tempus, O mores, O Wikipedia. Lou Sander 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (In tears, because the judgment of men will prevail. Good bye, Big Rac, it's been a pleasure to know ya.)
  • Note, user already voted above. (Yes, I thought this one was funnier! No, I'm not trying to spoil the humor :-) Just making the closing admin's work easier.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 9 July 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.