Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (sixth nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Steamer

Cleveland Steamer (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Note that there were five nominations previously: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th.

• WP:WINAD. A definition plus usage examples constitute a lexicon entry, not an encyclopedia entry. Plus, this is a stupid, juvenile piece of shit article that needs deleted like (removed). Guglielmo Clintone 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) — Guglielmo Clintone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy keep - "juvenile piece of shit" is not a guideline or policy I am currently familar with. (I totally stole the rest of this from one of the many many AFDs this article has had - but why come up with something new when someone else has came up with a very good reason to keep). The term has widespread pop culture references - mentioned in major Hollywood motion pictures and popular cartoons. Referenced in a Family Guy episode, Mr. Saturday Knight. In the DVD commentary, Seth MacFarlane admits he got the phrase through the FOX censors precisely because they didn't have a clue what it meant. --Charlesknight 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (removed) Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I agree, its notable, has solid sources, and fairly well written. scope_creep 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wictionary unless the article is expanded - it really is just a dicdef. The "use in pop culture" section doesn't give any useful non-etymological information about the term. --Hyperbole 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Heh, solid sources. Like poop. But seriously, this has survived AfD five times already and the term is important in popular culture such as Family Guy and the Daily Show. Valley2city 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Even I know the term, and I'm about as far removed from the pop-culture mainstream as they come. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This was just at AfD a few weeks ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (removed) Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and especially not a dictionary of American fratboy slang. --Charlene 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiktionary. I urge the closing admin to review this carefully, as this is pretty clearly something meant for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. --Improv 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the last 5 AfDs certainly thought so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is pretty clearly messed up when such an obvious candidate for wiktionary is kept here. It's hard to argue that it's anything but a term definition. --Improv 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, AfD is way, way fucked up. If it makes fourteen year old boys titter, it's "speedy keep!" all around. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwiktionary is for items that could never be expanded beyond a term definition, that is not the case with this article. --Charlesknight 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been around long enough, and been AfDed enough times, that if there was any verifiable information beyond the dicdef and the original research pop culture cruft it would be in there by now. Guy 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• This "article" is a definition and a list of usage examples. The only way this could be a clearer transwiki candidate is if it listed its part of speech, pronunciation, and etymology. If it could be usefully expanded, between its two and a half years of existence and previous appearances on AFD, surely it would have been by now. —Cryptic 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. There's an entry for Donkey punch, of all things. And it really can't be confined to a definition, a lá Santorum. I know the term even outside of pop culture - it's one of those in this category that it seems everybody's heard of. --Grahamdubya 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, per above, bad faith nomination. bbx 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (removed) I nominated this and gave policy based reasons for doing so because I feel it doesn't belong and violates policy. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above: This is very obviously a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ye gods, delete! I've seen some horrifying stuff doing my newpage patrol thing, but this takes the prize. I agree with the nominator in spirit and agree with his reasoning per WP:WINAD, but disagree with the salty language. BTW, I have a lexicon of slang or two that have "definitions" that look just like this article. Definition plus examples of usage in sentence form or quotation. All it needs now is called a noun and given an IPA pronunciation transcription. I highly doubt Wiktionary would take this, as we aren't quite the dumping ground Wikipedians think they are. Also, I first heard of this in 1992 when it was college slang, not fodder for TV jokesters, and there was no mention of the "steamroller motion of the buttocks." I have a conventional ass, and mine won't move 360 deg. It sounds like an embellishment. I believe the common-sense etymology involving how feces steam in cool temperatures. Origin in 1992, to me, means neologism banned according to WP:NEO. This appears to have been a very, very bad article, a real troublemaker, a point of contention, and a source of snicker material for vandals for a very long time. I must question badlydrawnjeff's neutrality (but not his zeal) as he has consistently voted to strongly keep this without a single rational reason that I can find in six AfD's. I don't understand "valid pop culture term" as a reason to keep. This is a contentious issue, and I hope you don't mind having a newbie like me chime in, as perhaps I may offer a new perspective after researching this for a day. Mr Spunky Toffee 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Now you question my neutrality? Are you saying I have a bias toward shitting on someone's chest? d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I really don't know, and I'm not going to ask what your personal preferences are, whether you cruise the church socials or the singles' bars or the leather bars or the swingers' clubs. Not my business. It does, however, seem that you take an unusual interest in grotesque sex jokes popular among young men aged 15 to 25 and that this unusual interest constitutes a set of blinders you wear to avoid looking at policy. Just my two euro cents. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Damn reputation not matching reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please keep it. I heard the term on [The Daily Show] and came straight to the wikipedia to find out what it meant, and here it was. The justifications for removal look like a thin sham to cover up for prudes wanting to supress potty language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crispincowan (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or simply delete. The article is the only thing in the world shittier than the subject. Guy 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or delete. This article is essentially a dictionary definition with a list of examples of its usage, which is not encyclopedic in the slightest. If people are interested in the meaning of this term, they can go to Urbandictionary or something, because this isn't the place for it. WarpstarRider 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• I wish to enter into the record an AfD of an article that seems to be comparable to this Cleveland steamer article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead prostitutes in popular culture. Boy, I had a heck of a time finding this little gem, googling for garbage. Dead prostitutes are a common joke in "popular culture." I'm sure even Family Guy had a dead hooker or two. So, why the resounding delete on an article on what is essentially a pop culture joke and list of examples, just like Cleveland steamer? Maybe an admin could undelete and compare the two. "Dead prostitutes" apparently had a sole author and no serial AfD's, and those are the only differences I can detect at this point. Oh, and the fact that it's pretty easy to figure out what a dead hooker is without reading a sentence-long definition. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, it seems to me that an article on dead hookers would be more encyclopedic than Cleveland steamer, since the dead hooker is often used as a plot device in TV and movies as something unpleasant that must be disposed of carefully and with great difficulty. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain and comment. This nomination was made less than a week after the last AfD closed. There is very little chance of the outcome changing in such a short time, so this was probably premature and a bit of a time-waster. Despite the fact that I'd be happy to see it deleted (see my reasons in the last several discussions), I don't think enough time has passed for this AfD to be relevant. Note also that this is the sixth nomination: I've fixed the page and its inbound links, as well as linked to the last five at the top. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Chaning my !vote. Since it's here, I might as well... Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a definition and a list of attestations in the real world. There isn't a scrap of encyclopedic content in the article. Previous AfD keep votes were given because they saw potential for the article becoming encyclopedic if only someone would include some decent sources, and it has never happened after the AfD closed. Given that repeated failure, I don't think it ever will until the Real World does some academic or semi-academic treatment of the subject and creates some decent sources for us. In other words, I agree with Improv wholeheartedly. Also see The World Will Not End Tomorrow: if this is going to be encyclopedic in the future, we can wait until then to have an article, can't we. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inclusion of this article does not really advance the interests of the encyclopedia, overall. It's a very, very marginally notable entity. Let's say it adds .0001 encyclopeditrons of value to the Wikipedia. Then on the other hand you have the chance of this being picked up and used to give a bad impression of Wikipedia, invitation to vandalism, attracting the undesirable sort of editor, really inappropriate for children (and yes I know we are not censored for minors, but I don't think this is what is meant), general ickiness, and so on. We can say that overall the article subtracts .0002 encyclopeditrons of value. Therefore it is bad for the 'pedia, and the closing admin should WP:IAR and delete it regardless. That is what WP:IAR is for. Herostratus 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! That is one of the best arguments for delete I have ever seen! I completely endorse this reasoning: the existence of a class of articles whose removal increases the net worth of the project is something I have long appreciated but not found a way to put into words. I once saw the Yiddish term nebbish defined as the kind of person who when they leave the room you think someone just came in - this article is like that :-) Guy 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary The language doesn't bother me, but it's a definition, not an encyclopedia article. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. AfD isn't something you can repeatedly use until you get the 'right' result. And WP:IAR can work the other way - it can be kept because although it isn't much more than a definition, it won't be found in many dictionaries and thus is useful. Your encyclopeditron (however much I like the word) claim has no evidence supporting it. Trebor 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Any word, term, or phrase could be turned into such an "article" consisting of its definition plus a list of some instances of its usage in culture. An article on a term should be about that term in a more meaningful way than this, such as through an expansive description of its meaning, etymology, and/or history of usage (and a horrible word can make for a good article). Postdlf 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No way should an article be made to face a sixth AfD. I don't accept the argument that a definition and a few instances means that it's a dicdef. It's hardly in mainstream usage (I hope!) and is a valid and verifiable entry into the sexual activities area of Wikipedia. The integrity of Category:Sexual acts is at stake if we start arguing about what's encyclopedic and what's a dicdef. There is no harm with the term appearing here and Wiktionary if necessary. Mallanox 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your fears are unfounded, I think. Legit sex acts clearly deserve a place here. Hey, I'm a perv myself, having engaged in golden showers, and I wouldn't let any legit sex act get deleted without my strong opposition. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• JoeJance - I believe that this is not just a definition but a chunk of modern American culture. I disagree with deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.142.103 (talk • contribs).
• just a random reader FWIW, from a non-contributors point of view, it was just partially referred to on a US television program known as "prison break" and I came here looking for the meaning.. I know there are 'frank' listings of sex things at wikipedia, and I decry deleting it as well, even at 36 I need a place where I can go for information with out feeling embarassed.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.27.122 (talk • contribs).
• Keep this is a clear abuse of the AFD system. This like GNAA is a clear example of deletion for deletions sake.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, that's precisely why it should be deleted. GNAA is a horrible article, a total piece of crap, and it should have been deleted unilaterally by a rouge admin long ago. If that leaked to the press, Wikipedia would look like a White Power hate site. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the fifth time -- possibly, erect some sort of bar to renomination. The world has all kinds of ugly sides; we don't discriminate. The article is short but encyclopedic. John Reid ° 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't five consensi (plural) enough? Rockpocket 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or better yet speedy keep. This is beyond ridiculous. Like it or not, this is a widely known and used term, and the article, while brief, is well referenced. Get over it. Silensor 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• I insist that there has been no policy based argument to keep, ever, for this article. I've scoured the pages, and I haven't found anything but "keep, I've heard of it," "keep, important to popular culture (i.e., TV)," "keep because of previous AfD's. Does anyone know Anderson Cooper or Keith Olberman? This would make good copy for them and extract the urine from WP in the process. Mr Spunky Toffee 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Notable slang for an extreme (though possibly apocryphal) sexual act [1] [2] [3]. Same principle we have articles on facial (sexuality) and felching. Passed into popular culture per examples above, in the article and [4] [5]. What policy dictates we delete? Rockpocket 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Facial and felching are commonly used terms for real sexual acts, and in both cases major subgenres of pornography appear to be based on them. This is not a widely used term and no subgenres of pornography appear to be based on it. It's a dictionary definition plus a few bits of original research. Guy 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above reply contains numerous wildly unverified claims. Ironic, given the editor's position on why the article should be deleted. Additionally, drawing comparisons between felching/etc. and cleveland steamer is inappropriate, as the former is (as has been mentioned) notable due to its incidence in pornography and related areas, whereas the latter is notable due to its permience(sp?) througout mainstream popular culture. -- Y|yukichigai 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Crystal clear bad faith nomination made by a single purposed account mere days after the fifth AFD was closed. roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: As has been mentioned, this is a highly suspect nomination, particularly given the short lapse in time between the previous nomination. Additionally, the article clearly meets the core qualifications of notability and usefulness. Regardless of the incidence of the article's topic as a bona fide sex act, it nonetheless has integrated itself into popular culture all the same. -- Y|yukichigai 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm calling "shenanigans." Your arguments are patent nonsense, based on no policy whatsoever. "...clearly meets the core qualifications of notability and usefulness?" Please provide a link to that policy. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google returns more than 125,000 matches for the term, [6] so it is likely that people will look to Wikipedia for this information. What we have now meets verifiability standards. Yamaguchi先生 22:02, 14 November 2006
• Strong Keep. I've looked over all the AfDs and, while I agree with most of the nominators that this is disgusting (I seriously wish I could scrub the info out of my brain), that's not a reason to delete it. I believe this is more than a simple definition. This article should focus on the origins of the phrase and how it has seeped into popular culture. So this article just needs an overhaul. Transwiki if you want to, but don't delete. - Lex 23:21, 14 November 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.