Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sniff and growl

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.161.65.104 (talk) at 09:47, 1 April 2005 (→[[Sniff and growl]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sniff and growl

Originally was a speedy candidate, but user objected. Listing it here. Slac speak up! 01:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Slac speak up! 01:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Referenced on multiple occasions by comedian Jim Breuer, and by others, some sports figures. Is something my peers grew up with, probably regional to NYC metro area, but who knows? I would like to know the criterion for noteworthiness. It seems awfully subjective. (written by 67.81.188.159, author of the article in dispute)
  • I think if it is notable, it's worthy of a dicdef on wiktionary only.--Dmcdevit 01:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't object to it being moved to wiktionary (written by 67.81.188.159, author of the article in dispute)
    • I do. This isn't an idiom, and the article discusses the thing, not the words. Contrary to popular misconception "dictionary article" is not synonymous with "one or two sentences long". As to the thing, there are no sources cited in the article and a brief search turns up no independent verification that what is described actually exists. (There are a lot of pets sniffing and growling on the World Wide Web, though.) Delete. Uncle G 01:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sounds notable from the above, but I can't find any evidence with google. When peope say "non-encyclopedic" they often mean "embarassing to talk about". Kappa 01:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note, both of the favorable comments above were written by 67.81.188.159, the author of the article.--Dmcdevit 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you a mind reader, Kappa? You're speaking for me now? This has nothing to do with this nonsense being "embarassing", and all to do with this being nonsense. Unless you or the original poster can prove that this is used somewhere, it's not encyclopedia-worthy. RickK 07:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't speaking for you, you didn't even use the word "non-encyclopedic". However I note that sometimes people describe things as "incomprehensible" when in fact it is understandable, but "reflects badly on the encyclopedia". Kappa 11:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Something incomprehensible is very different from something non-notable. And something "reflecting badly on the encyclopedia" is different again. Who exactly do you think operates this way? I sympathise with RickK in that when you raise this matter in out of the blue the implication is that you're talking about the people voting here. Slac speak up! 12:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Well I said "often", this is my interpretation of a lot of "non-encyclopedic" votes around here. I'm try to help this outsider to understand the situation, and what they need to do/show to get this article kept. In my opinion it will be more difficult because the topic will sway people to vote "nonsense" or "non-encyclopedic". They need to know that when they are deciding how hard they should look for evidence. Kappa 13:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to find google references (is this the criterion) but I am wondering if it'stermed under something else as well. We call it "sniff and growl".

As for non-encyclopedic (e.g. "embarassing" topics) I give you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse by way of example. It's gross, but it's a cultural tome (and a wikipedia entry, not just a wiktionary entry) --(also 67.81.188.159, please sign)

  • Even if it is true, in its current state, it is unencyclopedic, as any dictionary definition (if this is one) needs encyclopedic context to merit inclusion. Note: Goatse does seem to have sufficient context for a successful article.--Dmcdevit 01:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G's reasoning. android↔talk 05:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. RickK 07:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Android's reasoning. Radiant_* 14:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sniff and growl is something we used to do growing up playing street hockey. I grew up in Connecticut. GTSmelon
  • Keep This article is badly written but Ive heard of it. Have any of you ever played a team sport?
  • Keep geez, what's with you people? Sniff and Growl was used all the time by me and my friends on the HS Cross Country team in the mid 80's.
  • Comment: Last three unsigned comments were from anons 68.246.35.33 (GTSmelon), 193.201.68.111, and 65.119.192.130, respectively. Dissimilar IP addresses. Sock-puppets or grassroots response? Barno 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radiant's reasoning. Barno 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it normal here to post IP's on a public forum??? What are you thinking?
    • Yes, in fact, it is normal. It's the only way to identify anonymous users, such as yourself, User:65.119.192.130. Kindly click on the History tab you see above this page – you'll see that the IP addresses of anonymous users are recorded there, whether or not the associated edits are signed. Your hysteria is entirely misplaced – if you don't want your IP address displayed on a public form, then don't post there. android↔talk 17:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the previous deletes are per'ing the other's reason, which is that they can't seem to google it. Is Wikipedia just a googler's yellow pages as it were? I affirmed this because I've heard of it. But I wonder if this makes it hard for other instances whereby there isn't sufficient coverage on a topic due it's obscurity. If Jim Bruer makes reference to it, and he is a wiki article, then by extention, does this become encyclopedic because it's a theme on his show? Think before you just bandwagon! — This comment by User:68.246.35.33.
    • If there isn't sufficient coverage of a topic due to its obscurity, then it is either not notable or unverifiable (or both). android↔talk 17:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • What I'm hearing is that if it isn't googleable, it doesn't exist. Using your criterion, it's notable because Jim Breuer makes frequent reference to it, and verifiable by anybody who listens to his show. Should I write up a web page about this and wait a few weeks for the googleverse to spider the page so you'll be satisfied? -- GTSmelon
        • Comment: The top-level referent of the "per so-and-so's reasoning" (Uncle G's comment) doesn't mention Google. It mentions verifiability via cited sources. Plenty of sources not indexed by googlebots are considered authoritative primary sources. A reference to mentions on a regional radio show probably isn't. Presence of a Jim Breuer article in WP does NOT confer encyclopedicity on everything his show mentions. Barno 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Minor point: It's a national radio show. And it's not an offhand mention. 67.81.188.159 00:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep Just for you G. (signed by User:62.253.64.17)

Delete. This is just a quite obscure and regionalized topic. If we have to cover all the little regional things that happen to be covered in radio shows around the world, it would be madness. Not a very important thing to have in an encyclopedia, IMHO (just think of it this way: How many people are going to search for it?). Sarg 18:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • what Elitism! New York, NJ, and Connecticut (and who really knows if thats the extent) is hardly being provincial.That's like saying Taylor Ham isn't important since it's endemic to NJ. And to answer your question, everybody who may listen to some radio show one day and want to know what it's about! People don't turn to encyclopedia for known things, they turn to it for unknown things.

-- GTSmelon

    • First of all, yes, New York, NJ and Connecticut IS being provincial when compared with the rest of the world. Plus, this thing seems to be even less notable than Taylor Ham. Secondly, you seem to be overreacting. Sarg 18:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep User:24.105.128.226

      • It bears repeating: People turn to encyclopedias to study unknown things, not known things. As for the overreacting comment, lets not get into ad-hominem attacks. 68.246.35.33 19:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary seems like a reasonable move. The term can be looked up, but won't be an encyclopedia entry. -- Glen Finney 19:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable since this DOES exist, but apparently it isn't hoary enough for some people here. I will say this. Depending upon the outcome of this discussion, (so far six keeps and eight deletes) I propose that the winners line up to growl, and the losers have to line up to sniff. 68.246.35.33 19:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Will you stick by that idea when the admins discount "keep" votes from anons with little or no edit history? {violates etiquette by releasing flatulence} Barno 20:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


    • Whether that's true or not, it's a pretty cynical thing to say. Do some here get their rocks off on browbeating the newbies? Anyway, I'm the douchebag who started this article and I stand by it. 67.81.188.159 23:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. Move it to the Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary. FL
  • Do nothing of the sort. Too much talking hosiery=complete waste of electrons keeping the "article." Delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I remember using this in grade school. brings back... interesting...memories. Taylor Ham has an entry, so should this. Even the spiedie has an article and these are absolutely unique to the Southern Tier of New York State. Unsigned comment by: User:67.80.226.145.
  • KEEP This has saved my A** on more than once.... And I even teach this in my evening classes.... My students are always amazed... Unsigned comment by: User:24.3.176.155
  • Delete. I agree with Uncle G above. Zzyzx11 00:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Socks begone. --Plek 00:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment As the douchebag that started this article, I am pretty mystified at how seriously everybody is taking themselves here. But by the way, "sniff and growl" is a real thing, and obscure entries are precisely what make a thing such as Wikipedia useful, not useless. Sniffandgrowl 00:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. In fact, the comment above was added by an anon, and Sniffandgrowl changed the anon attribution to his current name. See also the personal attack made i the edit summary. RickK 00:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have the same IP as the creator of this article because it's ME. I went back and updated my sig. As for personal attacks, I never made any, I'm in fact arguing for more respect here. Point it out. Sniffandgrowl
        • Really? I quote the edit history you made: "Edit -- figure I'd register. Applying sig. Dipshits." Just thought I'd "point it out". --Dmcdevit 01:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That is not a personal attack, it is humor which I'd imply some of you lack if doing so wouldn't be a personal attack. Sniffandgrowl
  • Delete, puppetcruft. ComCat 02:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep No reason why really, it's funny as hell, and if it does exist, it belongs in an encyclopedia. --user:69.201.157.187
  • Invasion of the Sockpuppets! Coming soon to a theater near you! Radiant_* 09:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sniff_and_growl&oldid=11755513"