Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighting farts

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. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lighting farts

Too high brow? Without referring to the Wikipedia:Google test, please explain how this is encyclopedic. Or not. --GRider\talk 18:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • There's nothing in there that would duplicate if there were a Merge to Flatulence. Tygar 19:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hmmm we have to do this without the google test? 6 or 7 references to notable comedians/shows demonstrate that this is a significant phenomenom in popular culture. Works better separate from Flatulence. Kappa 20:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge → Flatulence, or maybe move it to a different title. Either way, keep it. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 20:17 Z
  • Keep proper encyclopedic article. Grue 20:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename → Flatulence ignition. While there are clearly sophmoric overtones to the article, that does not disqualify it from being encyclopedic (see Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors). If anyone can provide a more "noble" title I would not object to a rename The google test does seem to indicate Flatulence ignition is a more academic alternative to the current name. --Allen3 20:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a well-known phenomenon that's been around for a significant period. (Probably since the invention of fire, but I doubt it can be proven...) grendel|khan 21:17, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Unusual articles. It's a well-known article that has been around for a significant period. After the little tally boxes, the nomination of Wikipedia:Google test for deletion, and the re-opening of discussions 11 hours after they are closed, I suspect more WP:POINT here. Uncle G 10:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Scatalogical humor, but has been a pop phenomenom for decades. Arevich 21:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly a widespread and well-known enough phenomenon to be encyclopedic. 69.165.92.123 02:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, that was me. I just forgot to sign in. (P.S. renaming this to flatulence ignition is probably a good idea IMHO) — Ливай | ☺ 02:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Lupin 04:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, you know when Wikipedia has reached new depths when there appears to be a majority of votes for articles such as these and Donkey Punch. Megan1967 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fartcruft. ComCat 07:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And strongly disagree with Megan1967's comment. The documentation of bizarre phenomena and practices is one of the things that makes Wikipedia worth reading and contributing to. Those who want to bore themselves to death can go read Britannica. --Gene_poole 22:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strange but verifiable and, dare I say, encyclopedic...not to mention hilarious. Agree with Gene that offbeat articles are what make this site stand out. - Lucky 6.9 03:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Wikipedia landmark since Feb 2003. Sometimes strange cultural practices can be written about encyclopedically. -- Infrogmation 04:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A pretty complete article, considering the subject matter. --Cwolfsheep 05:00, Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename article to flatulence ignition (I like that name! xD). Topic is rather strangely encyclopedic I'd say. --Andylkl 08:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep, and rename to flatulence ignition. I also disagree with Megan. DaveTheRed 00:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and rename to flaturlence ignition but add a redirection from lighting farts to flatulent ignition. Gordonfan --24.228.22.170 02:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please sign in to Wikipedia if you have an account before voting on articles. --Andylkl 04:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. References in populr culture should definitely also mention the first volume of Spike Milligan's war memoirs. Grutness|hello? 10:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, renaming to flatulence ignition if you feel like it. The subject, while offbeat, is a notable practice and the article describes it adequately. To be fair, though, I'm biased in favour of Unusual articles material. -- Kizor 10:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep ... it's become a staple of bathroom humor, and is therefore notable. --BD2412 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No thank you - call me an old prude, but really! You people are the limit. 213.175.233.9 16:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge → Flatulence. We have an article about kerosene, but we do not have a seperate article about the act of lighting kerosene. --NoPetrol 18:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Flatulence. If we are to have fart articles, let's keep them as concentrated as possible (no pun intended). Edeans 19:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As crude as it may seem, it IS a comedy subject. -- Old Right 00:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 21:05, 19 Mar 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.