Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (4th 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer

This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms cautions against. After a lot of good effort to improve and source the article, we are left with a bare dictionary definition, plus a rather short list of cultural references to the term (some of which don't refer to the term, but to the act only). The article includes references, but all the references are examples of use of the term, rather than about the term (as is specifically required for reliable sources about neologisms in WP:NEO. See my vote for specific criticism of the FCC document, which is the best source). The article was nominated for deletion before, three times, however, each of those nominations had a problem. The first was based on an ill-advised attempt to censor WP. The second (no consensus) was perhaps the best, but several of the keep votes are based on the idea that the article could be expanded and sourced properly, and it's now 3 months later but this hasn't happened; the keeping of the article in the previous round was also a factor. The third AfD was largely decided because of the outcome of the previous two, plus allegations of a bad faith nomination that led to a user conduct RFC. The most recent nomination is now two months ago, so I feel it's time the community can give the issue a fresh look. Mangojuice^talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Let me point out that the FCC source is not a reliable one. In it, a "cleveland steamer" is defined by a radio jockey in a transcript that the FCC includes in a document. The FCC document is not about cleveland steamers, but rather, includes the transcript to demonstrate the portion of the show the FCC objected to in fining the radio station for broadcasting it. The article uses this source to back up the definition of a Cleveland steamer.. however, the definition in this source is just given off-the-cuff by a DJ (with apparently very little certainty). Mangojuice^talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Although it is gross, and dubious in ever having actually occured, it is a widely known and used term. If references are needed ... oh God, I don't want to have to look any up ... eww. Nonetheless, it passes WP:NFT with flying colours, and any other standard I could require it to uphold. If you don't buy the citations, that's one thing, but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to dig up ones everyone can agree on. WilyD 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What about WP:WINAD and WP:NEO? And how long are we supposed to wait for these sources? I looked hard myself, and couldn't find anything even remotely reliable. Mangojuice^talk 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I would guess that it should pass WP:NEO under the assumption that it's not a neologism - I don't believe it is, anyhow. WP:WINAD may be a better argument, but the pop culture references may save it as stub needing expansion instead. It already has 4 references - while they may not be the highest quality, the do speak against it being a neologism and should get it past WP:V - given the current content. Is Pop culture references enough to make it fail WP:WINAD or Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information? I'm not convinced of either of these things. WilyD 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment why does this article keep coming up on AfD?? Stop stuffing beans up my nose! :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; whilst I do not wish to vote either way on the issue at present, this is the fourth AfD in just over 7 months. The last was two months ago, and was for "keep". Have things changed significantly since then? If not, I don't believe this AfD is justified. This is verging on abuse of process. Fourohfour 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, things have changed, namely, we've done the best we can to find sources and we still haven't. Also, two of those nominations were badly tainted debates. Please see my nomination; I explained all this. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator (or transwiki to Wiktionary). From WP:NEO: "To support [an article about] a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." It appears that cleveland steamer is exactly such a term: there is demonstrable use of the term, but it has not yet been the subject of any writing that Wikipedia can actually use as a source. Therefore, the subject is necessarily original research and can't have an article written that conforms to policy yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, perhaps speedily under criteria #5. This is an absurd nomination, sources exist and it's not an issue anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources aren't enough to pass WP:NEO though. They have to be secondary. We don't seem to have any. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears these do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I must have missed the ones in question, then. Which sources are secondary? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be gross but it's definitely real. BoojiBoy 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep is think its a notable enough phrase. People might come looking for it. --Pboyd04 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not convinced that any of the sources constitute a reliable source on this subject. Given that it seems to be such a controversial subject, is there a larger article that it could be merged to? Incidentally, I don't believe that this is a bad-faith nom, given the spotted history of the AfDs above. Ziggurat 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate merge target is probably coprophilia. Mangojuice^talk 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call - would this be an acceptable compromise? When you strip away the unverified information there's really not enough for a full article on this subject. Ziggurat 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Been there, tried that. There was no consensus for a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's no consensus that just means we have to try harder to find one :) If I may ask, what was the reasoning against it last time it was suggested? Ziggurat 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the subject is notable enough as is, and deserving of an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Somethings are just too good that they must be mentioned. Frankly I am suprised that the Roscoe or the Avenger do not have articles. The Cleveland steamer is a North American Universal expression. The Steamer has one name throughout U.S.A., unlike other expressions. This act is as important as Tea-Bagging. Pete Peters 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps a Merge may be in the best interest. Nom has a some really good points. Maybe the act can be merged with a Dirty Sanchez and others, into some sort of master list of similar acts. Pete Peters 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Instead of deleting the article, why don't you just expand it.--Glaze 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The nomination notes that expansion was argued in past deletion debates, but hasn't happened for lack of material. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Why delete I rather get the definition here than some other stupid site, 19 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.248.13 (talk • contribs).
  • Note: user's only edit. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. You want urbandictionary. Down the hall, third door marked "WC". -- GWO
  • Comment Cleveland Steamer is not really slang. I checked my desktop dictionary and it doesn't contain blowjob but that's not really slang either. The current entry may be small in its encyclopaedic content (i.e. just appearences in pop culture) but it's not a straight dicdef. Plus, Urban dictionary is basically just for things that are made up, not for real, ordinary, widely used terms like Cleveland Steamer. WilyD 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, forgive me, but that's not a very good comparison. Cleveland steamer is a very new, fringe-use term. Check out a googlefight. But even if you buy this comparison, I'd like to note we don't have an article on blowjob, we have a redirect to oral sex. Mangojuice^talk 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Cleveland Steamer is neither new, nor fringe. Of course it loses a google fight to blowjob - the porn content of the internet combined with the mainstream vs icky gives that an obvious edge. If you wanted to offer an appropriate merge target for this article, that might be worth considering, but deletion is an extremely poor idea. I doublecheck and see a merge target is already offered. I'll consider that issue. WilyD 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and merge with coprophilia. Attempts to expand significantly seem to have been unsuccessful. Perhaps, if further references are found and it can sustain as its own article, we can create a seperate article for it again in the future. -- backburner001 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've never heard of it and I'm the biggest pervert around.64.26.148.240 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Personal opinions aside, precisely because Wikipedia should be a reliable place to look up anything. We don't send people out to go on a wild goose chase online or Urban Dictionary (same difference), we want them to rely on WP. A redirect to coprophilia would be OK, though, if only for decorum's sake. --Mabuse 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note (and this is to everyone who's been talking about slang dictionaries), we do have a sister project in Wiktionary that accepts entries about neologisms. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In my IE address bar, the wiki markup makes it look like this is the 284th nomination...which is what it feels like... youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• whats the big deal?!?! Its funny and educational for the kids —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.6.75 (talk • contribs) .
• keep please it is not really a neologism any more it is frequently referenced by many types of media Yuckfoo 18:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Coprophilia. This term is most notable for being funny to middle school kids. Recury 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD and badlydrawnjeff, the term is real, it is notable, and is frequently used in pop culture, namely Tenacious D, Family Guy, and the article provides sources. I suppose we'll have this discussion again in September. Silensor 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: in case anyone needs more references, I was able to dig up two more, both of them nonfiction books: [1] [2]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, you're good at what you do! Those are much better... at least we have reliable sources defining it now... whether that rises to the level of discussing the term, I'm not sure; they're pretty much straight definitions. Mangojuice^talk 03:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me be clear, though, I still think this should be deleted, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WilyD says that the "cultural references" brings it past dicdef... but I could add a cultural references section to ANY dicdef. There are a lot more terms Family Guy uses in the show, and they don't (and shouldn't) all have entries. Mangojuice^talk 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor and newly found sources from badlydrawnjeff (although having never purchased from Amazon, I can't read them, it appears at least Mangojuice can.) Genocidal 05:19, 23 July 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.