Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogging (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. John254 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hogging

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Properly creating second third nom for User:Peggynature, who relisted an old nom from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- notability and verifiability have not been established. Wikipedia states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, even if the practice does exist, it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia unless it can be verified by reliable sources. There are only two sources for this article, both of which are based entirely on interviews, which do not establish verifiability or notability. The Wikipedia general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Furthermore, the Wikipedia guideline on fringe theories states, "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." If you search online for this topic, Wikipedia, aside from humour websites and self-published books, appears as the main source of information, lending a sense of 'validity' to build on the scanty references in the article. See Talk Page for more details on unverifiable references that had been added to the article. This article also falls under What Wikipedia is Not -- I do think this term could be included in a dictionary, like Urban Dictionary or even Wiktionary, but its sources do not provide adequate notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Peggynature (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the sources could be argued to be 'reliable,' and they alone do not constitute Notability. See talk page. Peggynature (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies -- that was my mistake. I wasn't sure how to create the new discussion page for something that had been nominated in the past. Thank you for correcting it. Peggynature (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the sources? The sources that come after the 2003 article by Sarah Fenske are all based on that 2003 article and do not provide independent verification of the phenomenon, outside of interviews which may constitute primary sources. The 2003 article itself was based on interviews. Peggynature (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not reliable. See the article's Talk Page.Peggynature (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Scholarly coverage by medical professionals, even if brief, is reliable. News coverage by print sources is always reliable. Regardless of the source of their research, peer reviewed journals are always considered reliable. Celarnor Talk to me 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But did you read the sources? Peggynature (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that most of us have. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Have you? Peggynature (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." The "verifiable" sources are 1) a 2003 MSM article based on intervew, 2) a qualitative research paper based analyzing the interviews from the 2003 article, 3) a self-published weight loss book by an MD who has never published anything on sexuality, and includes half a page on 'hogging' (page 8) in his book and 4) a joke website from a college. Oh and 5) an "unofficial" study by Judith A. Sanders for which no reference is provided, or could be located using Google Scholar. Peggynature (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that there aren't any reliable sources out there whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't -- but I have been looking for them for over a week, and have not found them. I originally thought it was a verifiable phenomenon myself, until I read the sources. Due to my profession, I have access to almost every peer-reviewed journal available, and I'm fairly experienced at finding things. Everything I've found relating to this topic actually is based on the original source -- a 2003 article in Cleve Scene, wherein the author herself admits that none of the stories can be independently corroborated. Further -- the burden of proof is on the article's authors/editors to show the article is notable and verifiable -- not on me to prove that it is NOT. Peggynature (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, it only took me a few minutes to find one; granted, I have the full Ebsco databases at my disposal, but still....See (Kelly Air Guard unit facing sex-harassment probe (May 19, 1994) Adolfo Pesquera and Christopher Anderson Express-News Staff Writers San Antonio Express-News Page 1A (1156 Words). Another good source. Rather than fighting pages like this, the nominator should be looking into things such as WICU and ARS to help this article improve if they can't do it themeselves. Celarnor Talk to me 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please post a link, if available? I'm not able to find it using a title search. Peggynature (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link won't work for you unless you're on my schools network; since the link to the database interface is on the public website, it has to check to make sure you're on a local subnet first. The article discusses a Kelly Air Guard unit under an internal probe after engaging in this practice and bragging about it to the wrong people. Celarnor Talk to me 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt: "It does go beyond the bounds of good taste," Martinez said of the log. "We need to clean it up." The "Hog Log," as it was labeled by the pilots who composed it, is a scrapbook in which at least six pilots apparently included derogatory references of a sexual nature..." Celarnor Talk to me 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does this article fail or pass WP:N?--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the subject of coverage by multiple, verifiable, reliable, sources? If it is (and I think that's very much the case), then yes, it is, per WP:N. Although articles don't pass or fail notability, subjects pass or fail notability, since the article may be incomplete, as it is in this case. Celarnor Talk to me 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3 edit conflicts, wow) I read it over and I agree. Thanks.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Politically correct? no. Polite? no. But notable? Yes, as verified by the sources. Wikipedia is not censored Bfigura (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I'd love for this to disappear as much as I'd love American Idol to disappear, I can't deny it's notability and popularity. Our culture marches relentlessly toward oblivion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of multiple reliable sources which are primarily about the topic is proof of notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep- in the UK this is called Moose -hunting or something, I think. I wasn't sure about these sources, but checked them and they seem ok. special, random,Merkinsmum 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a notable term and well referenced. The referencing and inline sourcing could be improved though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes WP:V. That Peggynature does not think so is apparent, but challenging everyone who accepts the sources scarcely assumes good faith. For my part ... (1) yes, I've read the sources, yes, I consider them valid, and (2) no, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice suggesting that a source based on interviews is by that token questionable. How many newspaper articles aren't buttressed by interviews? (3) I am curious as to the mention of "fringe theories." What theory is propounded by this article? It can't be that the term is in use; "Hogging" + "sex" + "fat women" returns 734,000 Google hits, and it's plain from reviewing some that this is a term in current usage. Disgusting though the practice may be, that's scarcely pertinent.  RGTraynor  16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hogging_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1191292545"