Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:31, 12 January 2009

Soggy biscuit

Relisting for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_3#Soggy_biscuit_.28closed.29. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One RS so far: Chambers Slang Dictionary (by Jonathon Green, Chambers Harrap Publishers, ISBN 9780550104397), previously Cassell Dictionary of Slang (Cassell Reference, 1998; last edition 2006, ISBN 9780304366361). Sufficient RS for a very simple concept and male masturbation game. Also exists as a extended (simulated) masturbation scene in the German movie Crazy (2000) as well as Stephen Fry's The Liar, and Skinless's song "Scum Cookie". The term is notable although the article could use some work. Should not be deleted per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clean-up and expand. This is a well-known circle jerk initiation used in ritual initiations and hazing. There is, of course, erotic aspects but we can build slowly to get there. Here's one, [1], [2], Cassell's Dictionary of Slang should help. Soggy biscuit is called Runka Bulle, or Runkbullen in Swedish and in Australia it's "Soggy Sao", because it's done on a Sao biscuit.[3][4] -- Banjeboi 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term and concept are clearly notable (irrespective of whether the game truly exists or is mainly an urban myth) per the existing sources and Benjiboi's links. This is an article deserving expansion, not deletion. DWaterson (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - [5] suggests that the novel Goats by Mark Poirier also contains a depiction of the game on page 106. DWaterson (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also called Last Off, Limp Biscuit, ooky cookie, The Biscuit Game, Scum Cookie, soggy cracker, and Soggy Sao. The RS, especially as supplied by Benji, more than satisfy WP:V and WP:N. — Becksguy (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and is more a WP:DICT dictionary definition than a bona fide encyclopedic topic at the moment. The references provided are either brief mentions or actual usages of the phrase in fiction, rather than in-depth and specific discussions of the concept itself. Therefore this entry belongs on Wiktionary rather than on Wikipedia. There is also a kind of an unresolved WP:V issue since it is not clear from the few refs available if the game is an actual game that is/was widely played or an example of an urban legend (my feeling from doing googling is that it is probably the latter). E.g. here[6] the game is described as "probably mythical". Unless and untill reliable sources are clear on what this actually is, it is not really appropriate to have an encyclopedia article on the topic (it would necessarily be WP:ORish and speculative). Nsk92 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the four years of this article's existence, no notable information about the game has been found other than a definition in a dictionary of slang and a handful of references to this activity in fiction. I do not believe there is a body of recorded human knowledge about the Soggy Biscuit Game, and doubt the article could be expanded any further than what is essentially a dictionary definition. Therefore, as per Nsk92, I feel it is more appropriate for Wiktionary. — Matt Crypto 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn dicdef at present; only other content ever on this "article" was OR. Wasn't this merged into a sexual terms article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the deletion review. Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (3rd nomination) the closing admin decided to merge into the article Biscuits and human sexuality. However that was already on AfD at the time, and heading towards a delete result. So when it was deleted (the day after the merge) this went to deletion review. the wub "?!" 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any reliable sources not already linked above and to my mind they consist only of trivial mentions and dictionary definitions, not enough to be the basis of an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is indeed a game which is played in some British public schools, but there are no reliable independent sources for the content. Well known it might be, but we are not allowed to write about what we know only about what is documented in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We include semi-mythical games and legends and games that appear in fiction if there are sources. A handful is sufficient. The article it was merged into was deleted because the other part of the article was not able to be justified, and re-creating this was the most direct way to deal with the situation. DGG (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki if Wiktionary will have it. Though it is a legitimate concept insufficient reliable sources have been produced to show that this can ever be more than a permastub. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable. travb (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a look at the article and I can see reliable sources. It may be short, and it may be slang, but neither are reasons for deletion. -- role^player 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if Wiktionary will have it; if not, delete. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comedy interlude: possibly not a reliable source, but whilst searching for some I found this which is worth a laugh: [7] DWaterson (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might be short, but as shown by Becksguy at the very beginning of the discussion, there is potential for expansion beyond dic def status because of its use in popular culture. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At best then, the article will just be a dictionary definition plus a "List of references in popular culture" section.
  - That's pretty much assuming bad faith. Many slang articles like nigger, dyke, fruit and twink move well beyond stubs witha bit of TLC. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. At the moment I don't see any sources that would justify this as an encyclopedic article (rather than a mere definition). In other words I don't see any evidence that the concept (and practice) is real and deserves an encyclopedic treatment. The only reference is to a Dictionary of Slang, which only proves that the term exists, nothing more. Further, the second paragraph states 'the notability is such ... that variations are referred to in popular culture, examples including Stephen Fry's The Liar, the German movie Crazy and Skinless's song "Scum Cookie"' (emphasis mine). Yes, popular culture. That's all. Are there any serious real-world references, or, to spell it out, is there any discussion in multiple, reliable, independent, published sources which discuss this activity (and not just the term)? If so, then please provide such references. If not, then this clearly fails WP:RS, and should be deleted. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not aware of any policy that requires an article's concept to be "real". Truthiness isn't "real", but is a featured article. The Cassell's reference is certainly enough to fulful verfiability requirements for the notion, irrespective of whether it actually occurrs. And Stephen Fry is a extremely well-respected author - works of literature aren't good enough sources any more? DWaterson (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fiction does not make for particularly compelling reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability advises, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I think this topic fails the significant coverage criterion — Matt Crypto 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahemm... "works of literature aren't good enough sources any more"... Let's get clear here... Sure, there are plenty of notable works of literature (i.e. fiction), but you can't present everything they say as being objectively true! To be sure, (for the sake of an example) Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is a very notable work of literature. But you wouldn't use that as a reference to prove that a person called "Hamlet" really existed, now would you? One must make at least some distinction between fictional sources and real-world sources --- even in Wikipedia (where the boundary between fiction and fact is admittedly rather vague.) -- 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and still pondering this for now. This article was stable from August 2007 to December 2008 despite several hundred edits. Earlier versions had much more material but much was trimmed away by editors. This caretaking suggests keep. On the other hand, most of the sources I can find are from not-so-reliable sources, and even some of the blog-type sources (example) have a large number of participants saying "what's that" or "I've never heard of that," indicating non-notability or, as an early version of the article suggested, limited geographical notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transwiki to Wiktionary is an acceptable solution. Note that wiktionary:Transwiki:Soggy biscuit has existed since March 2007. Based on the page logs it looks like it's an incoming transwiki from Wikipedia. However, it has not yet been moved to Wiktionary, despite being patrolled 2 weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT and previous nominations. If this doesn't get deleted this time around I will GLADLY re-list it in a few weeks in order to gain consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that deletion policy specifically warns "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome". the wub "?!" 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go quote your policy to someone where it actually applies dude. Its perfectly fine to wait a reasonable amount of time to renominate something in an attempt to obtain consensus. That's how Wikipedia works in case you didn't know. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least I quoted some policy, unlike you just warning that you'll act disruptively if you don't get your way. I just noticed you didn't refer to any policy/guideline in your deletion reason either. "Per nominator" is an argument to be careful with at the best of times, but especially in this case where the nomination was purely procedural. The nominator didn't express any desire for deletion. Or did you not actually read what you were endorsing? I wonder how much else of the discussion you have read... the wub "?!" 18:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it did come across a little bit like you're saying you would keep relisting it at short intervals until you got the outcome you wanted, which is not a hugely efficient way for Wikipedia to work. I'm not saying it'd be bad to relist it at some point in the future, with the experience that the article hadn't grown beyond a stub despite the passage of time. Yet, we've had this debate for years already, and nobody's turned up more than a dictionary definition and a handful of mentions in popular culture, but still people see potential for expansion. — Matt Crypto 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It is articles like this that give Wikipedia a bum rap. JBsupreme (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the reference to The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English that Benjiboy found above. With the two dictionary references, the possibility of more to come, and the coverage in popular culture, I think this is a notable concept. The user comments at the IMDB entry for Crazy confirm that the game as described appears in it, though we could use a more reliable source for an actual citation. Stephen Fry discusses it at length, but unfortunately my copy of The Liar is at home. Note that although fictional, many parts of the novel are based on Fry's own experiences. I seem to remember it being mentioned in his actual autbiography Moab Is My Washpot also, but may be getting confused here. I'll try and get to the library next week. If someone can confirm the band Limp Bizkit being named after this also (as implied here), that would be another plus. the wub "?!" 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Talk:Soggy biscuit#One reference source: is probably of interest, a book titled Guyland, the Perilous World Where Boys Become Men which refers to it, enough to merit a mention in a New York Times review. I'll try and track that down also, but have some real work to do now. I don't think "I was researching people wanking over biscuits" is going to make a good excuse for why I haven't done my supervision work :) the wub "?!" 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That you can find it in multiple slang dictionaries is perhaps reason for it to be in another slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Xihr 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the NYT reference to Guyland and to the book also (and a few others) and will be adding them here and to the article. I also have a YouTube ref to a clip from Crazy (2000) that contains the soggy biscuit scene here, 1:52 in duration. — Becksguy (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. WillOakland (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, this belongs in a (slang) dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Xihr 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've Got To Be Kidding Me. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references in the article or below seem to point to anything other than it being a dictionary definition. As such, it would be more suitable for Wiktionary. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm providing a compiled list of references to Soggy Biscuit, Ookie Cookie, and other synonyms, all in one place, since much of this debate is about references. To be expanded. Please continue debate above this. — Becksguy (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green, Jonathon (1998). The Cassell Dictionary of Slang (1st Ed). Cassell. p. 1110. Definition: Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. p. 2189. ISBN 041525938X, 9780415259385. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Quote: The term "soggy biscuit" is thought to have originated in Australia sometime in the 1960s
Yang, Wesley (2008). "Nasty Boys - Review of 'Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men,' by Michael Kimmel". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Published: September 7, 2008 Quote: "He describes here the fraternity hazing practice known as the “Ookie Cookie"
Kimmel, Michael (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Harper. ISBN 978-0060831349. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Green, Joshua (1998). "Seven Deadly Sins: Bear, babes, and beatings". Salon.com. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 28, 1998 Quote: "As at most schools, there was a rumor that trumped all others -- of a pledging endgame called "Ookie Cookie" in which fraternity hopefuls masturbated onto a cookie. The last one to finish faced a grueling ultimatum: eat the cookie or face instant excommunication."
Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-0312263492. Quote: Stateside, the Limp Bizkit name just looks misspelled with a possible impaired phallic reference but overseas Limp Bizkit takes on a completely new, and sometimes obscene connotation. "We've heard that in Australia there is a game called soggy biscuit, but they call it limp biscuit, too. It's played by teenage boys, and they have a circle jerk on a biscuit or piece of bread, and whoever comes last has to eat the bread"
Ferguson, Drew (2008). Screwed Up Life of Charlie the Second. Kensington Publishing. ISBN 978-0758227089. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Quote: So that leaves the library stacks and daydreaming about the hockey team's "soggy biscuit" initiation where all the guys jack off onto a slice of Wonder Bread and the last guy to shoot eats it
Geoghegan, G. P (2007). Bush - the Dark Night of America. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1430324409. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Quote: Later as an upperclassman, I graduated to the role of master, righteously ushering new pledges through untold character-building sexual humiliations and countless camaraderie-building soggy biscuit tournaments.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 **'''Comment''' - I'm not aware of any policy that requires an article's concept to be "real". [[Truthiness]] isn't "real", but is a featured article. The Cassell's reference is certainly enough to fulful [[WP:V|verfiability]] requirements for the notion, irrespective of whether it actually occurrs. And [[Stephen Fry]] is a extremely well-respected author - works of literature aren't good enough sources any more? [[User:DWaterson|DWaterson]] ([[User talk:DWaterson|talk]]) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 *** Fiction does not make for particularly compelling reliable sources. [[Wikipedia:Notability]] advises, ''"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."'' I think this topic fails the significant coverage criterion [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
+** Ahemm... "works of literature aren't good enough sources any more"... Let's get clear here...  Sure, there are plenty of notable works of literature (i.e. ''fiction''), but you can't present everything they say as being objectively true!  To be sure, (for the sake of an example) Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is a ''very'' notable work of literature.  But you wouldn't use that as a reference to prove that a person called "Hamlet" really existed, now would you?  One must make at least ''some'' distinction between fictional sources and real-world sources --- even in Wikipedia (where the boundary between fiction and fact is admittedly rather vague.) -- [[Special:Contributions/131.111.223.43|131.111.223.43]] ([[User talk:131.111.223.43|talk]]) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Neutral''' and still pondering this for now.  This article was stable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soggy_biscuit&diff=260519944&oldid=154899170 from August 2007 to December 2008] despite several hundred edits.  Earlier versions had much more material but much was trimmed away by editors.  This caretaking suggests '''keep'''.  On the other hand, most of the sources I can find are from not-so-reliable sources, and even some of the blog-type sources ([http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090102204403AAdX2S9 example]) have a large number of participants saying "what's that" or "I've never heard of that," indicating non-notability or, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soggy_biscuit&oldid=40328545 an early version] of the article suggested, limited geographical notability. {{unsigned|Davidwr|03:09, 11 January 2009}}
 :*'''Comment''' Transwiki to Wiktionary is an acceptable solution.  Note that [[wiktionary:Transwiki:Soggy biscuit]] has existed since March 2007.  Based on the [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Transwiki%3ASoggy_biscuit page logs] it looks like it's an incoming transwiki from Wikipedia.  However, it has not yet been moved to Wiktionary, despite being patrolled 2 weeks ago. {{unsigned|Davidwr|03:15, 11 January 2009}}