Deletion of Dutch oven (practical joke)

Comment: and perhaps the occurrences could be turned into wikt:Wiktionary:Citations|citations for wikt:Dutch oven at Wiktionary, where that sense already exists but without citations.  As an encyclopedia article, the problems are riginal research (perhaps  particularly - does any source actually say "this appears in such and such media" and WP is adding additional examples, or are ''all'' the examples being collated by WP?) and .  Also otability particularly the eneral notability guideline and ignificant coverage: "sources address the subject ''directly in detail''" (emphasis mine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:DICDEF||WP:N||WP:G||WP:S)

Comment: This nomination is made on the basis of . The nomination itself is also a strong case of  where the nominator self identifies that it is made "''as a particularly embarrassing...''" etc. The article is well referenced, with sufficient |reliable sources to ensure that it is shown as notable and verifiable. As we keep reminding ourselves, |Wikipedia is not censored. This nomination is a misguided attempt at censorship. The suggested merges are banal. How many other practical jokes should be merged to ''practical joke''? And what value woudl it add to ''flatulence''? It doesn't matter whether we ''like'' the article or not. There are many articles we don't actually ''like''. What matters is whether the encyclopaedia finds the article notable and verifiable. I submit that it is both of these, and demonstrably so with its citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT||WP:RS||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: reasonably well known, and  isn't really a valid argument for nominating it.  I think the article is decently sourced as is, and I'm confident there is enough significant coverage to merit inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Improper AfD.  isn't an acceptable reason for deletion. There's a whole lot of stuff more unencyclopedic than this around here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: You may like to look at Talk:Dutch_oven_(practical_joke)#Nominated_for_deletion_2|Talk:Dutch oven to see that the nominator has expressed  quite substantially there. This looks very much to me as an improper nomination, but it may as well run its course until someone closes it.  No-one will die if the article is deleted, though it really ought not to be, and Wikipedia will not be harmed if it remains, which it should do, simply on the basis of sourcing. An article may always be improved, and perhaps that will be the outcome
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: to Flatulence#Social context.  Does not appear to have enough ''reliable'' sources for notability as a seperate article, but there's enough here to  much of the information as a subsection of another article.  Some random links to mentions in blogs and the like are not enough to support an article, and even where mentioned in reliable sources, the mention is quite short; far too little for the "substantial" aspect of .  There are certainly examples of the event occuring in fiction and other places, but there just doesn't seem enough for a seperate article.  The material is good, but would be better served as part of the article on flatulence
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:GNG)