Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2)

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 No consensus/Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soggy biscuit

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This was previously nominated for deletion last July, but survived with no consensus. No reliable references or sources have been provided since last year. I believe this is not, at present, a tenable topic for a verifiable encyclopedia article: anything we do write will either be original research, remain unverified or will reference only unreliable sources. To quote the Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."

• Delete. — Matt Crypto 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When you see the phrases "A game supposedly played" and "However, there is no documented evidence that this game is actually played by anyone", and not a single reference, the WP:V alarm bells start ringing. Not verified, not verifiable, original research, get thee gone! Proto||type 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• weak Strong Keep, per refs below. Name and concept commonly known in the UK, at least. A widely-known urban legend- surprised better sources can't be found. Needs rewriting, but I feel now know can probably definitely (see below) be verified. I get the impression that many of the contributors to this and the previous AfD may have doubted the game's veracity- whether it's ever actually played or not I cannot say, but the concept and name at least are genuine. Badgerpatrol 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - 'can probably be verified' - I tried, and I found nothing reliable. If somebody else can, then I will reconsider my vote. Proto||type 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Response Referenced in UK national newspaper [1]. This is such a well-known concept that I suspect other printed sources (e.g. compendiums of modern folklore, commentary on public schools etc) would also be available [in addition to those already offered); however, I do realise that strongly suspecting the existence of other references is not the same as having them to hand- hence weakness of keep. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  I guess the question isn't so much as to whether the concept exists — whether as an urban legend or not: it's clear that plenty of people mention it; e.g. in the newspaper editorial you mention. The issue would appear to be whether enough information about it has been published by reputable sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article about it. My suspicion is that there is not, but it's difficult to prove a negative. — Matt Crypto 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and I also note that the Blackadder quote, while it might refer to this practice, does not provide enough information to know that it does. Esquizombi 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone in England would already know that it does - the practice itself does not need to be verified, it is a verifiable cultural reference.

• • • Comment Those claims do not meet WP:V. Esquizombi 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Badgerpatrol or redirect and smerge (not sure to where) or transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm not sure how much of an Encyclopedia entry this could ever be. I'm curious as to where Cassell's Dictionary got its info, but I suppose it is an acceptable source. I think the unsourced stuff in the article (e.g. the players do not necessarily self-identify as homosexual) has got to go. I found another source of debatable reliability: ""Other popular variations of such games include ejaculating onto food (favorites are soggy biscuits, white bread, chocolate pudding, etc.). The last person to come has to eat it." Garbage, Greta (1999). That's Disgusting : An Adult Guide to What's Gross, Tasteless, Rude, Crude, and Lewd, page 71 ISBN 1580080944 The game also appears in Goats: A Novel by Mark Jude Poirier, page 106 and in the story "Soggy Biscuit" by Barry Lowe in Flesh and the Word: An Anthology of Erotic Writing by John Preston. It's also described in Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit, page 26 ISBN 031226349X. Most of the other references to SBs in books (Amazon search) seem to be to biscuits that have become soggy from more conventional liquids, though some of them allow for probably inadvertant humor by double entendre. Esquizombi 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. WP:V. PJM 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - at least as a cultural reference. Is noted in Stephen Frys The Liar. For great justice. 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - res ipsa loquitur, as they say. WP:NOT a repository of urban myths, let alone schoolboy myths. Sandstein 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after WP:V provided below (but put the sources in the friggin' article!). Still not really convinced of notability, but well, if we do have all of e.g. Category:Paraphilia... Sandstein 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article needs a substantial rewrite (to improve style as well as to insert suitable references), which I am happy to do provided it persists past the AfD. Badgerpatrol 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While many editors reject WP:WINAD and think that neologisms are just fine for Wikipedia, WP:V is not negotiable. Brian G. Crawford 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

General comment I think there is some misunderstanding here. Some voters appear to be objecting on the grounds that the entry is a neologism or 'pure' original research (ie that the original contributor, or a small group containing the contributor and a few friends, made up this term on the spot). Neither is true. 'Soggy biscuit' IS not a neologism. It is a widely-known and recognised name and concept, at least in the UK (as can be confirmed by even a cursory Google search, which returns multiple (thousands) independent hits). One may not have heard of a term, but that does not make it untrue. The question is not 'is this a real thing' but rather 'it IS a real concept, but should it be included in the encyclopaedia'? (ie, can it be verified?). The content is definitely true, but 'actual' truth is not 'objective' truth (ie verifiability). I have provided one ref above, and FGJ has suggested another; there is also the Blackadder sketch. There are numerous pages regarding individual urban legends and modern folklore on Wikipedia. The material should probably be kept in its current form; I feel there is too much for wiktionary, but a move would perhaps be one option as a compromise. As far as I can see, this term now fully satisifes WP:V and WP:OR. Badgerpatrol 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But what do these references let us say, exactly? I don't think they even suffice as a reliable source for a definition. — Matt Crypto 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V... references provided are not sufficient. This concept exists; in the days of yore where I came up it was called "Circle Jerk" and the supposed target was a Saltine cracker. The problem is sourcing. We have one referenced article that mentions "soggy biscuit" with the 'wink-wink-nod-nod' that the reader already knows what it is. There is a a mention in a book, and a passing mention on Black Adder. Unless someone can produce a source that verifiably describes the act of soggy biscuit in reference to that name, and the other purported terms used for it, it simply does not meet WP:V's big old bold text: Verifiability, not truth.--Isotope23 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, someone understands what sourcing the article means! Badgerpatrol gets a cookie for making a decent first step towards WP:V sourcing. I'm going to withdraw my opinion for now pending Badgerpatrol's rewrite and sourcing of the article. I'd like to see further sources, or the article strongly based and attributed to the Cassell reference if that is the only WP:V source being provided.--Isotope23 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Stephen Fry novel The Liar, and the article should reflect its existance as a rumour and item in fiction, not claim it is a fact. For great justice. 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned or described?--Isotope23 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Described, in quite some detail. For great justice. 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's a novel, yes? We can't really use fiction as a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 06:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if that is the source being used to verify this then the article should read "Soggy Biscuit is an act described in the Stephen Fry novel...etc". At that point I would say this should be merged to The Liar.--Isotope23 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure - re-write the article to show that it is a cultural reference. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Dosen't appear to be true, otherwise is's funny move to BJAODN Walksonwalls 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. No Guru 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is really just a slang dicdef that has been expanded beyond it's usefulness. It is not a neologism but it isn't encylopedic as it's not notable. MLA 12:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, for those of you who are not from the UK, it is not a neologism. It is a cultural reference that appears in numerous places. There are articles for fictional places, people and things, the reason people seem to insist on deleting this is that most americans have never heard of it. That's disapointingly narrow minded. For great justice. 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that it is not sourced per WP:V.--Isotope23 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge There is a WP:V and WP:RS [2], but not enough there-there for an article. FloNight ^talk 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to nitpick, but that isn't a WP:V source because it doesn't describe what "soggy biscuit" is. The exact reference in that article is: "It could have been more embarrassing only if they'd been caught playing soggy biscuit." Anyone reading that would have to have a pre-existing idea of what "soggy biscuit" refers to. All you can infer from this is that getting caught playing "soggy biscuit" is embarrassing, or would be to a world leader. It could be a collequial reference to Candyland based on the complete lack of context in this article. A WP:V reference needs to describe the game.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I want articles like this on wikipedia. There may be difficulties in getting citations and references about a sex/dirty game but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant, and this game is definitely not made up and is sort of an urban legend. If I want to find out what a 'soggy biscuit', is or what 'hot karl' is or whatever filthy things I hear on TV are I want to be able to go on wikipedia and find out. I can confirm as a UK citizen that this game does exist, at least by word-of-mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.143.187 (talk • contribs)
• Strong keep - If "felching" stays in, so should "the soggy biscuit". This is the sort of pop culture referance I utilize the wikipedia for. Settling arguments and such. If I wanted a typically boring encylical, I'd have broken out the cash for a world book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.64.199 (talk • contribs)
  • That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is not reliably sourced. recreate it in Uncyclopedia... or find sources.--Isotope23 13:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:NOT. --Hetar 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I've even heard this urban legend in Norway. 129.241.127.122 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on Verification OK, in a nostalgic reminder of my mis-spent youth, I spent part of today in the library looking up naughty words in the dictionary. The first (and I must confess, only- breaktime is special time!) dictionary I went to ('The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, Jonathon Green, 1998, page 1110) had this to say re 'Soggy Biscuit':

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'

That is surely as exact a definition as surely wikipedia needs? As objective evidence, we now have: the Guardian article, which tells us that a) soggy biscuit is an embarassing activity; b) that it is sufficiently notable as to be suitable for inclusion in a major national newspaper without further explanation, the nod and wink conceit being that the reader will already know what it is and will not require further explanation. We have the BlackAdder reference. We also have FGJ's assertion that the game is mentioned in detail in The Liar. Finally, we have the precise definition in a reference work intended for a mass audience. This, as multiple correspondants above have asserted (not just the slightly unreliable anon. IPs), is a widely notable urban legend. I have no doubt, given the widespread notability of this game in British and Anglophone culture, that many other references are available and can be added to the article in the future. I did not have to look hard in order to find the definition above. I really do feel that we now have enough corroboratory evidence to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. There is no reason why this article should be held to higher standards of notability and verifiability (which surely have now been satisfied?) than any other on Wikipedia. It is a real concept, not a neologism, sufficiently notable for most readers of a national newspaper to be assumed to have heard of it, and can be verified with an exact definition. It is encyclopaedic. Badgerpatrol 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete or at worst merge - is there a page Stupid games people play, with apologies to Eric Berne, who would classify this one a type 3 game I think. It may be genuine - it has been mentioned in a newspaper, although the journalist didn't say what it was, so assuming that he meant the same thing as someone else is ... and assumption ... but it lacks the minimal element of importance sometimes called notability that distinguishes all-inclusiveness from encyclopaedic. Midgley 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Response I think I've outlined the case for notability above. 'Importance' is a subjective term. Notability... -isn't. Badgerpatrol 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Some more citations, from NewsBank:

"YOU might think nothing would shock rockers Limp Bizkit but you'd be wrong. The American stars are horrified to discover that their name describes a masturbation game known across the world". The Northern Echo: SLEAZE AND BIZKIT Northern Echo, The (Middlesborough, England) April 4, 2002

"It's a terrible thing to do but it is a TV tradition - as is the biscuit game at public schools". Independent on Sunday: First Up: Close to the edit Independent on Sunday, The (London, England) December 16, 2001

"Reading is for idle fops between rounds of the biscuit game" In your face - Comment, Alan Coren Times, The (London, England) December 3, 1999

All such sources are admittedly hearsay, but they are reliable sources to the existence of the meme. Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Tearlach 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - whether or not it actually takes place in real life, the concept is well known and the term is in common usage. DWaterson 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, expand and source. Notable concept. (Note that I am an American who has heard of this term, and it's actually pretty widespread even here, though we call it soggy cracker, not biscuit). --Rory096 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, it's the playground equivalent of Keyser Soze - everyone's heard of it but no-one has played it. The article needs to be brought in line with WP:V post haste. Deizio 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks Badgerpatrol for digging up a reasonably credible source for a definition. I've reduced the article to those facts for which we have reliable sources. — Matt Crypto 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Response- No problem! I have now completely rewritten the article and included verification. It is never going to be War and Peace, but with a modicum of effort it could expand from the sizeable stub that it now is to a minor article. Note that I have included some no-wiki comments in the body of the text that are only visible when editing or in the history (see this diff). It would be great to get hold of some of the newspaper mentions referred to above- if any subscribers can get hold of them and include them as refs that would be ideal. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 14:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badgerpatrol. New Progressive 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but don't stop looking for sources - certainly a term I've known for decades, and definitely improving after Badgerpatrol's work on providing some credible sources. Surely more can be found for such a long-time urban legend. - dharmabum 21:16, 7 April 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.