Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (5th 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. RFerreira 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer

Previously nominated four times: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

• del Nothing but a slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide of slang. The article looks big because of a big collection of usage cases, which is hardly an encyclopedic purpose to list where in movied a particular obscenity has been used. `'mikkanarxi 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment this nomination needs to be fixed. First the title on the top needs to be to the article in question not to the AFD discussion itself. Second this is the 4th 5th not the second AFD. Finally, there is no notice on the article about the article about the AFD. It needs to be added. --70.48.110.3 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Five AfDs, plenty of verifiable mentions, this isn't going to (and shouldn't) go anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with secondary !vote/suggestion to redirect to Coprophilia. Badlydrawnjeff is probably right that we'll just get another "no consensus", but it is just a dicdef, followed by a list of random references that do nothing more than prove that it's a dicdef. If anyone can figure out how to make any sort of halfway meaningful article out of it, even a stub, I'll be happy to change my vote. --Aaron 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Would Wikipedia really be worse off without this stupid article? Furthermore, is it necessary to have every slang term in Wikipedia? Perhaps this might be better at Wiktionary. Johnbrownsbody 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with User:Aaron and User:Johnbrownsbody on this. It's a dicdef, with loads of citations, but still just a dicdef. Emeraude 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Only because we've got some issues with what's deemed "reliable." Stubs are, minimally, dicdefs, and there's no question as to how well known this term is and how it could be expanded with some sanity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that this "could" is not so obvious to everyone. The fact that it hasn't been cleaned up indicates to me that it cannot be, rather than could be. I've tried to find reliable sources to start a cleanup and failed. (Note that none in the article currently qualify as reliable sources as they're mere examples of usage.) Essentially, the fact that this could be the subject of scholarship does not mean that is has been. Since we don't publish original research, such scholarship-in-potential must happen and be found by an editor before we can justify an article here. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I realize we don't have a concept of double jeopardy around here, but seriously. It may be wise to talk to the nominator and see if sanctions are required as well, since this is bordering on a bad faith nomination. Haikupoet 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the evidence for "bordering on a bad faith nomination"? I don't see any. Bwithh 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been brought up so many times that the nominator is either ignorant or trying to force an issue that should have been dead after, oh, about the third try. It is not clear which. Haikupoet 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly suspect just unaware of the previous nominations, given the brokenness of the nomination at first. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. There's been a quite lengthy period since the last afd, and the current article is still not clearly within policy boundaries. As Saxifrage notes, promised fleshing out of the article into something encyclopedic has not occured. Last afd ended in no consensus as well. The article hasn't been nominated that many times anyway. If articles aren't brought well into bounds of policy, they remain vulnerable to legitimate afd nomination. No need to assume bad faith at all Bwithh 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/ possible redirect as per Aaron Dicdef. Popular culture references are of negligible encyclopedic value Bwithh 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Plenty of sources. The popular culture references demontrates more than a dictionary. I'm bothered by so many previous nominations (another Harold Stassen afd award contender). --Marriedtofilm 02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: LOL at the Stassen reference. (I think that may be the first time I ever typed LOL on Wikipedia.) But amazingly, it's not even close. GNAA has been up for deletion seventeen times. --Aaron 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Every time this has been nominated, those voting "keep" have said that it can be more than a dicdef with a laundry list of uses in pop culture if only someone would clean it up. Every time it hasn't happened. In this case, rather than the norm of assuming that multiple previous failed nominations strengthens an article's case for being kept, I think the multiple times the article has failed to satisfy the condition of the conditional keeps indicates that is will never satisfy such a condition. There just doesn't seem to be any meaningful scholarship on the term, and we don't publish an article about a term on the strength of mere examples of usage and the existence of a definition. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If an article is continuously "unclean", is that in itself a reason to delete? This is just a genuine question and not meant to counter. --Marriedtofilm 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In some cases this is due to a lack of attention by editors, and that doesn't warrant deletion. In others it is a lack of attention by the rest of the world in a form that we can legitimately reference. Which one it is tends to be a judgement call. In this case there has been enough attention at AfDs and in managing vandalism of the article that I'm leaning heavily to seeing the lack of cleanup as a lack of possibility of cleanup rather than a lack of will to do it. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Note: I don't see a merge as being viable. The information would still lack sources beyond "x has said it" ones, which are inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes in any article. The only alternative to straight deletion I see is to transwiki to Wiktionary per Interiot below. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to coprophilia. As it stands, it really hasn't/probably can't expand much beyond a dicdef. Would be better suited for that article. GassyGuy 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. This is a textbook dict def; I'm not even sure why there's so much discussion here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash out my brain. eaolson 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to coprophilia, as per GassyGuy. Otherwise delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Numerous mentions ranging from 2001 (Mr. Saturday Knight) to 2006 means it meets their attestation criteria. --Interiot 04:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is a dicdef for a slang term. None of teh references cited in the article are references useful for the expansionof the article. In fact, the weight of the article is really turning it into a list of refrences to the term in popular culture. The fact that the term is used a lot doesn't make this any less of a dicdef. -- Whpq 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Poo-related articles come in handy for learning about health effects from fecally-based activities. --Clarenceville Trojan 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still, most people usually prefer to keep poo in a separate, preferrably remote, place and not spread it all over the dining table. Mukadderat 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef, nothing more. Mukadderat 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found it a useful article. 194.97.160.92 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef; same thing I !voted last time (and the time before that, I think). If anything, this article seems like it has gotten shorter since the last time it was here at AfD. It is currently a one-sentence dicdef followed by a lengthy "Usage in entertainment" section (Manual of Style: Avoid trivia sections in articles). ergot 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- This a useful and well-written article about a popular term of pop culture. It is also the name of the most sucessful hockey team in the history of the Electronic Fantasy Hockey Leauge, and was also made into a hit by international recording artist Brody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.100.78 (talk • contribs).
• keep please it is notable term we do not need to keep renominating this one Yuckfoo 01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether it's notable isn't being questioned—it's clearly notable. What is under debate is whether it can be more than a dictionary definition with a list of attestations, which is all that it is now. (For example, the term "sayonara" is obviously notable, but we don't have an article about the word.) — Saxifrage ✎ 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced, so it passes WP:V, thats good enough for me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the definition and attestations are sourced, but there is nothing else. How does the the dicdef being well-sourced make the fact that it's a dicdef irrelevant? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a highly-referenced article on a sexual act. Unlikely to be found in many dictionaries. Per the outcomes of the many previous excessive noms, subject deserves inclusion here. --JJay 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. To warn users about the health effects of feces. --UPN50 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User is an SPA and vandal. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because it's disgusting doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic.--Folksong 22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but being a definition makes it more suited for a dictionary. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered. I still think it should be merged, but there's not enough here to merit a standalone article. GassyGuy 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to Coprophilia per Aaron and BrownHairedGirl. Edison 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my reasoning in the 2nd AfD on this article. I'd prefer a merge into coprophilia over a delete, however, if consensus tends towards getting rid of the article. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and possibly donkey punch the next person who finds it necessary to renominate this for deletion. What I would like to see is this ever-evolving and well-referenced article brought up to Featured Article status, even if it doesn't have a shot at making Main Page. Silensor 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for volunteering to help fix the article. Note that I plan on personally renominating this if six months from now it is still a dicdef + list of attestations, so mind where you say you'll put your knuckles and keep WP:CIVIL in mind. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  LOL, you're welcome! Silensor 01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this unexpandable dicdef ➥the Epopt 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge, verifiable info about a sexual slang term. I would prefer keep over merge, to let the article grow over time. bbx 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep. JMFC, 5th nomination? Come on people. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Please Someone who found it useful 10:58, 29 October 2006(UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.196.129.136 (talk • contribs).
• Keep per the above. How many times do we have to discuss this? --Myles Long 15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• do not del this article provides a synopsis of a wonderful and multifaceted piece of Americana.--MattDawg579

• No, it's a one-sentence dicdef, and hasn't managed to expand beyond that in the entire time that it's been here. This belongs in a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has it. ergot 00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  So you can predict the future? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  People predict the future all the time, it's called inductive reasoning. The article has been saved from deletion before on the argument that it can be expanded, and it hasn't been expanded all four times. Is this because no-one has bothered, or because it can't be expanded? (I tried to, so I've already decided for myself what the answer to that rhetorical question is.) — Saxifrage ✎ 02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'll answer it for you - it's the former. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.97.165 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Google returns approximately 105,000 matches for the term, so it is likely that people will turn to Wikipedia for this information. Yamaguchi先生 03:36, 1 November 2006
• Keep.I found this article useful. Being a nerd who was unfamiliar with this term, rather than doing an internet search which would have just turned up a bunch of porn, I came to wikipedia. The definition was simple, without porn, and I now know what the term means. I would venture to guess that the people who would like this entry deleted are working from a moral objection, rather than a "purity of wikipedia" standpoint.
• Delete. Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary, what more do people want? --Improv 11:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Improv. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Wiktionary can just go away and nobody would miss it. Also, 5th nom? Yeah, keep, for whatever reason it was kept before. SchmuckyTheCat 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep. This isn't a helpful discussion anymore. 3 was enough, 4 was bad and this is just silly. --Apyule 12:17, 2 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.