Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (clear consensus; closing per WP:IAR). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer

  • Keep Article should be merged or moved to the sexual positions category, just like dirty sanchez. Omoo 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I discovered my 8-year old daughter reading this page and giggling this afternoon. This article is both unencyclopediac and obscene, and is completely unsuitable for a reference library. Wikipedia was one of the few sites that I allow my children to visit, but with articles like this it will soon be added to the blocked list as well. Please remove this disgusting content at once so that my family may again make use of your valuable resource. Sincerely, Bruce Thompson Bruce176 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not censored for content, and (unfortunately) this is a notable and well documented sex act (although perhaps only an urban legend). Have we set up a kid-safe sister project? BD2412 T 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This so-called "notable sex act" by your own admission does not even exist; it is nothing but a lascivious and pornographic fantasy. Also the article is obscene and violates community standards. Therefore it has no place in any sort of encyclopedia and should be deleted. By including pornography this site loses value as a research tool, which harms the very children who stand to learn the most from it. Bruce176
    • Dragons and vampires don't exist either, but we have articles on them. Our primary mission is to document everything that is notable in every field, including concepts expressed in popular culture. Besides, even if we delete marginal topics like this, what about clearly legitimate topics of anatomical, psychological, and sociological inquiry like coprophilia, autofellatio, cunnilingus, orgasms, ejaculation, and bestiality? How about Satanism and Nazi propaganda? NAMBLA? The GNAA? Once we exclude content for being objectionable, there is no effective drawing of the line. BD2412 T 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Rhobite 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - cleaning up obscene content is not censorship. If this encyclopedia is to aspire to compete with Britannica it will need to remove the gross-out articles first. Bruce176
    • I don't think you understand the meaning of censorship. Sexual acts are part of the human experience and must therefore be recorded in a encyclopedia that seeks to provide coverage of known facets of existence. Deleting something because of a subjective "gross-out" to it is silly in an enyclopedia that also aspires to be impartial. Keep. --Apostrophe 22:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- and KEEP your 8 year old off of the internet, if you are worried. Culturally relevant.
  • Strong keep with respect for the nominator and his legitimate concerns as a parent. From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors." This is a case of inadequate parental monitoring. I recommend to Mr. Thompson that he check the official policies of all sites he allows his children to visit. Wikipedia posts this prominently as official policy. There are many articles on this site that I personally find disgusting. This is one. I exercise my right to avoid them. My personal standards of decency are not universal. Near the top of today's debate is another topic some people find indecent: Gay rights in Iraq. I am glad such articles exist. If I knew a gay person who planned to travel to one of these countries, these references might make the difference between a pleasant trip and criminal prosecution. It's a slippery slope. Parental control software exists to address specific family standards. Durova 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is not censored and should never be. There are other similar terms as well, i.e. Donkey Punch.--Mayur 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Some content is simply inappropriate for this forum and detracts from the usefulness of the site. This page and many of the others cited fall into this category and should be purged. If any of you perverts are ever fortunate enough to find an adult female who is willing to sleep with you and bear your children (doubtful), you'll understand why it is so important that the internet's key resources remain free of obscene content and graphic depictions of sexual and bodily functions. Bruce176
    • Comment - Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your statements above are in violation of both policies. FCYTravis 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Also, if you disagree with Wikipedia official policy per WP:NOT then the way to proceed is to propose a new policy, not to vote in violation of it on specific nominations. Durova 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 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. FCYTravis 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- JJay 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Information of no value. CalJW 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What no one has asked here is how an 8-year-old would be aware of the term "Cleveland steamer". If it is in fact a case of someone stumbling onto it then I recommend the "What links here" be checked to make sure a vandal hasn't put a sneaky wikilink somewhere. 23skidoo 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Good thought, I double-checked the wikilinks and nothing out-of-the-ordinary pops up. Linked only where relevant. I suppose she could have clicked "Random article" and found it, though the odds are 1 in 868,488. More likely, she heard it on the schoolyard chatter, or she heard it from Family Guy, in which case I'd wonder what an 8-year-old would be doing watching that show. WP:NOT a nanny. We can't control what kids hear or look up. FCYTravis 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A simple search for the word "Cleveland" will find this page, as will "recent changes", "random page", etc. Randomly flipping to the middle of an encyclopedia, as a curious child may do, should NOT produce a prurient article with no redeeming value such as this one. Bruce176
    • A simple search for "Cleveland" in the search box redirects you to Cleveland, Ohio. That page didn't have a change on it since the 14th until you marked it for deletion, which makes it impossible for your daughter to have seen it this afternoon on Recent Changes, because it would have long since scrolled off. FCYTravis 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The chances of hitting this with a random article search are about 800,000 to 1. BD2412 T 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Censorship based on a desire to let one's eight-year old run wild and free on a free-edit site on the internet does not hold water. This entry is useful though perhaps revolting (as are most medical journals) and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. Attempting to impose your personal moral standards on the content of Wikipedia is in direct conflict with any sort of impartiality. As an aside, it is noteworthy that Wikipedia's ability to include even lowbrow slang terms amongst its entries may be an asset rather than a liability in its competition against more restricted encyclopediae (Britannica was mentioned).Epicurus13 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Well-documented/referenced act. I'm quite surprised inclusionist JJay is voting to delete this. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a somewhat surprising person Howcheng, my esteemed deletionist colleague. You may not believe this, but the mental wellbeing of children and young Wikipedia editors is one of the key factors that guides my voting. One glance at this excretory ode told me that delete was the only sensible response. Could I sleep at night knowing I was contributing to the future psychological trauma of legions of 8 year olds across the English speaking world? I think not. My conscience salved, I will now proceed in my tireless but lonely rearguard struggle for the Wikipedia rights of high schools, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, and Lists of fictional Elvis Imposters. -- JJay 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • MUST KEEP: Slang is an integral part of our lexicon. It fosters the evolution of our language. Without a recorded record of word explications and samples of usage, the word (expression) would cease to be used meaningfully and therefore corrupt the use of the English language into dialects meaningless, in this case, outside of Cinncinati.
  • Keep "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors." Jasmol 02:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obscenity is NOT a criterion for deletion. Verifiability is. So the real question is whether this is a real term, or a hoax made up out of whole cloth. Some quick googling finds that this appears to be real, if unusual, sex act. So I'd have to vote keep. Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I should add that deleting this article, and even removing all others like it, would not protect the nominator's daughter from finding equally offensive content on this site. Wikipedia is an open edit project. For a few minutes yesterday the main AfD page was entirely covered with photographs of human feces. Many other encyclopedias already address the nominator's concerns. Wikipedia has a unique mission. Durova 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable and very well-known sexual urban legend. I'm sorry if Submitter doesn't like the page, but Wikipedia, as has been pointed out above, is not censored. Recommend sanction for submitter for disruption of process by badgering commenters. Haikupoet 06:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored to "protect" minors, and articles should not be deleted on the grounds that they offend people. Roman Soldier 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia needs to enforce community standards on its site so as not to become a cesspool of obscenity and filth like much of the rest of the internet. If that means reviewing all additions and edits before they are live, so be it. Clearly, the project is large enough to afford the manpower needed to do so. Bruce176
    • Comment - Wikipedia does not have community standards of morality, because Wikipedia is not a community, it is an encyclopedia. "Community standards" are inherently WP:POV, thus violating the neutral point of view policy established for Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss a change to this policy, WP:AFD is not the place for it. I suggest you visit the village pump to discuss your ideas. FCYTravis 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment You only get one vote. Posting delete over and over again won't help. Tell your kids to use the less useful but "clean" Compton's Interactive or Brittanica. Also, would you like us to delete the article about toilets, too? Roman Soldier 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is very possible that Bruce is not even a parent; rather a bored teenager. Roman Soldier 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep "Censorship based on a desire to let one's eight-year old run wild and free on a free-edit site on the internet does not hold water. This entry is useful though perhaps revolting (as are most medical journals) and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. Attempting to impose your personal moral standards on the content of Wikipedia is in direct conflict with any sort of impartiality. As an aside, it is noteworthy that Wikipedia's ability to include even lowbrow slang terms amongst its entries may be an asset rather than a liability in its competition against more restricted encyclopediae (Britannica was mentioned)" I agree completely
  • Comment Looks like another victory over censorship. Would an administrator please close this discussion and remove the AfD tag from the article? Roman Soldier 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • AfD's run five days - this can be closed on the 21st. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep Article is very much a piece of our culture, and if you don't want your kids seeing it, then, BE A PARENT AND CENSOR YOUR CHILD - not everyone else. 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The act is obscene, the article is not. The original poster might be advised to have his censoring software block articles in the Sexual Acts category until his daughter matures. Of course, the existance of this term and others like it suggest to me that no one ever really grows up. —BenFrantzDale
  • Keep. Verifiable as a widespread rumored sexual practice, if not necessarily a real one. Notable as a cultural meme or uban legend. -Colin Kimbrell 22:43, 19 December 2005 (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.