Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (third 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 of the debate was KEEP. Rje 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer

WHEAREAS:

This is a dictionary definition. Examples of usage are part of normal dictionary definitions in extended entries in high-end dictionaries.

Any attempt at taking this article beyond a dictionary definition violages WP:NOR.

User:badlydrawnjeff, a known hardline inclusionist, has done his best at bringing this article in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and has failed, although his insulting edit summaries are noted.

This is a vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BE IT RESOLVED that this article be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep bad faith nomination based solely on a personal attack against badlydrawnjeff done in the name of the third AfD on this article all in recent memory. Wikipedia is not censored and this is a notable urban legend. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what insulting edit summaries? This? [1] How is that insulting? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes there were two previous AFDs. Yes, both ended with "no consensus". Yes I endorsed the result on DRV. But there are an awful lot of sexual slang terms lying around, and I don't this one is so common, so significant or of such interest that it needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn dicdef. Vizjim 09:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Keep. Sourced, can still be expanded with a little bit of effort, and, at this point, this nomination does not appear to be in good faith. Not a single effort has been made by "hardline deleitionist" Crawford to expand this. After THREE AfDs that failed to come to a deletion consensus, and after noting that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, along with a platinum-selling rock music act and various television shows have more than noted its existence, this shouldn't even be a question. Quit it, for the love of pete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an exaggeration of the provided source. The term was one of a multiple mentioned in a transcript, included in an exhibit, of a government report. No signficant government official (to my knowledge) has made special mention of the term. The radio personalities are the ones "validating" the term, not anybody in government. I won't vote on this, due to my distaste for re-AFDs. But let's not pretend the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is behind you. I don't think we want to be tossing in every term that's mentioned in a transcript, included in an appendix, of a federal government document. --Rob 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not really. It was noted as an obscene comment by the FCC, as referenced in the transcript. If it's good enough for government work, it's most certainly good enough for wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • We must be looking at different places. The only source given in the article is here. This is *not* a transcript of an FCC proceeding. This is a transcript of a radio show, included as an attachment to an FCC document. Nobody from the FCC make *specific* reference to a "Cleveland steamer". The people using the expression are labelled MV1, MV2, MC3, MC6 identified as "cast members" and callers of the radio show Deminski & Doyle Show. So the *only* thing this proves is that the term was used *one* day on one radio show. The FCC discussed the transcript in *generall* but did nothing to "note" a specific term. Also, the version before my edit, implied the term was mentioned in a hearing, but there's no proof of that. --Rob 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - while I and my nearest and dearest are unlikely to be giving this a whirl in the near future (viz. Alabama hot pocket, Blumpkin et. al.), I believe that notability is shown in this current incarnation of the article. I will not call this a bad faith nomination, but I do believe that if the article passes this AfD, there might not be much benefit in raising it again in the near future. This is a cultural meme, above and beyond being a dicdef, and as such is worthy of inclusion here. Colonel Tom 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per CanadianCaesar and badlydrawnjeff. --TM 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff and the FGotUS (so this is what the tax money goes for?). The article is well sourced. AnonEMouse 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Would not oppose a transwiki to wiktionary, if it isn't already there. ergot 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. Very well-written, very well-sourced article. It might be overly lewd, but it deserves its place in an uncensored encyclopedia. -- Kicking222 15:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep, per above. Bad faith nom. Good to have you back, Bri! Badgerpatrol 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete turdcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oreo man 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Coprophilia. As the nominator has already tried to do, being summarily reverted for no good reason. The article simply doesn't say anything that couldn't be covered more appropriately and usefully by a paragraph there. — Haeleth Talk 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually a rather incorrect statement regarding the merge request. I reverted the merge for two reasons: 1) lack of discussion meaning lack of consensus, and 2) one of the worst merges I've ever seen where almost none of the information from the article being merged was inserted into Coprophilia. I still disagree with a merge, given the notability of this subject. Ask 100 people - more will know what a cleveland steamer is than what "coprophilia" is, let alone pronounced. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because something can be targeted by vandals does not mean that we should not have articles on it. Any minority or political page is a target for vandals as well. Shall we get rid of those as well? If there are other pages that also pertain to this act then they should be merge. DanielZimmerman 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm generally opposed to re-AFDs. But it seems the *extreme* lack of reliable sources, has led to the blatant misuse and twisting sources to say things the facts don't support. Pretending this term has some sort of backing by the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is patently absurd. The only thing worse than not providing a reliable source, is trying pretend you have one, when you don't (or mischaracterizing it). There seems to be unwillingness to properly state what sources actually say. --Rob 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable sexual UL. I would cite double jeopardy as I did for the AfD on Dirty Sanchez the other day, but it appears that it doesn't attach in this case. Haikupoet 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This was a valid article when I didn't know what it meant, especially since it's used in Family Guy those that encounter it on such a popular show may question it's meaning.--GenDeathRaiser 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this kind of...stuff...really doesn't belong on wikipedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. Scranchuse 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is the third time in six months. Obviously notable and well-documented term, pretty clearly bad faith nomination. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepNaFedaykin
• Delete Notable enough for Wiktionary (where it already exists) but not enough material to justify an article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is just vile. I've half a mind to start advocating for morality standards for content... Or quite possibly, I just have half a mind. Nevertheless, I am disturbed that such articles exist and cannot find any defence, free speech or not, for their continued existence. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Vile, yes, but Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOT. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is more than a dicdef. No valid reason has been given for deletion. TheMadBaron 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Urbandictionary is the place for dictionary definitions of scatalogical slang. -- GWO
• Very Strong Keep This is a bad faith nomination for deletion which includes a malicious personal attack by Brian G. Crawford on User:badlydrawnjeff. Despite many attempts to sabotage this article in order to get it deleted there is still no legitimate reason for this nomination. Again, Very Strong Keep --Apyule 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nom, User Conduct RfC filed. -- backburner001 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - bad faith nomination. Kukini 18:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All this article is, is a slang definition. I can't see this being able to expand beyond being a mere dicdef, and a "list of pop culture references" is not enough for this to warrant an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete. It's a dictionary definition, and WP:NOT a dictionary. Its source is not useful: an appearance in a radio transcript means nothing: WP:NFT extends: Wikipedia is not for things made up on the radio one day either. As a matter of fact, that source PROVES this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you look through it, you'll see that it's quite obvious that the "Cleveland steamer" term was made up by one of the "male cast members" on the spot as some kind of joke; they were having a silly discussion about gross, made up sexual practices. In fact, merging this with Coprophilia is a bad idea, because this made-up slang term is of absolutely no importance to Coprophilia. As for this nomination being in "bad faith", I disagree. I think the nominator wasn't very civil... but there is PLENTY of reason this article should be deleted from wikipedia, so I just don't see bad faith. Mangojuice^talk 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looking a little more closely, apparently the supposed mention on Family Guy occurred before the radio transcript. So they may not have made up the term (though after talking about a "Cleveland Tornado", I'm inclined to believe it's a coincidence or subconscious reference to the show). Still, they obviously made up what it's supposed to mean. Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how it's "obvious" that the radio show cast is responsible for creating the meaning of the term, even after the term was used on a more popular venue. I think that conclusion is pretty presumptuous, but if you have a source I'd be very interested. --TM 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let me put it this way: on that transcript, it looks like they're making up the definition, so I don't even think it's convincing evidence of the definition already having been in use. But remember, the burden of proof is on those wanting to include information, not the other way around. And while we're at it... check out Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (an official guideline) which reminds us that for something to be a reliable source about a neologism, it's got to discuss it, not use it. Assimilating many examples of use is specifically, and appropriately, described as Wikipedia:original research. This article fails that guideline very badly. Also, one last thing... I'm generally an eventualist, but I think that we've given this article enough of a chance to get real sources, and it hasn't, and it should be deleted until such sources can be found. Mangojuice^talk 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I belive this page should remain, it has survived afd and it appears no effort really has been made by some whom want it deleted to improve it. Yanksox 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --DavidGC 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Coprophilia per above. Ewlyahoocom 20:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I generally object to repeat noms and we have already argued the merits/demerits of this article. However, there is never a reason to personalize a deletion nomination by labeling another user. The accususations concerning the noms motives here are troubling and obliterate any chance for a fair hearing for this article at this time. -- JJay 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination.  Grue  13:33, 21 May 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.