Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez (sex) (Third Nomination)

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. Rje 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Sanchez (sex)

Previously nominated for deletion in Febuary. Result was keep. Nominating because of lack of sourcing (therefore making it a nn pop culture reference), and a {{prod}} tag would never hold up. ^demon[yell at me] /12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, that's got to be the most heavily sourced article ever, so I'm not sure that the nominator's argument stacks up for me. Nonetheless, I vote delete, as I don't think that this article has really gone beyond a dictionary definition plus examples of usage. Vizjim 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not urbandictionary. -- GWO
  • Weak delete. I thought the article should have been deleted then, for the reason Gareth gives. But I don't see why it's been nominated again. Wasn't the issue settled back in February?Phiwum 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I just came across the article today, and was very surprised that it hadn't been deleted previously. I thought that perhaps a renom (after a 4 month cool-down) would be appropriate. ^demon[yell at me] /14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as previously: lacks a sincle citation from a reliable source, despite numerous assertions that one exists. By this time I think we are entitled to assume that unverified = unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Zer0faults 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. --Eivindt@c 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article needs sources, but this term is in wide use. It needs a {{Not verified}} at the top, but there are enough filthy-minded 14-year-old Wikipedians to make quick work of the job if prompted. --Dwiki 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, why the hell are we nominating this again? Considering the term inspired a band name, a television show, and an FCC fine, this is a horrible nomiantion. Nominee is also very, very wrong. NN pop culture reference? Obviously not. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence given that the television show refers to this. One use on a random radio talk show, which in my cursory glance of it seems to refer to the terms as being non-notable, does not increase notability. --Philosophus T 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, wow. What else could it possibly be referring to? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable and lacking sources. Even the references are not confirmed to be references to this in particular. --Philosophus T 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also a dictionary definition, by the way. We should delete and transwiki even if it is notable. --Philosophus T 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and find sources. Obviously notable, I am amazed by the amount of delete pile-ons above. Currently, the article is not verified- that is not the same as to not be verifiable. My experience is that reliable sources can always be found for such articles, and should be added. It's absurd to think that the numerous references in pop-culture pertain to something else. It should be noted also that badly written articles about notable subjects should be improved, not deleted. Lack of sources only equates to nn'ability if the sources DO NOT EXIST- if reliable sources verifying the existence and use of this term actually don't exist, then I'm a Dutchman. Keep. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
PS- I'm not a Dutchman. Badgerpatrol 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
PPS- Or woman. Badgerpatrol 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you're just foolishly optimistic?. Erik the Rude 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not renowned for my optimism. "Dirty Sanchez" = 902,000 hits. To put it mildly, I will be surprised if a term with nearly a million Google hits has NEVER appeared in print. Wouldn't you? Badgerpatrol 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
How many times do we get to "keep and find sources" before we decide that in the end there are none? Just zis Guy you know? 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As many as it takes. Just because our sourcing policy is somewhat broken at times doesn't mean we throw in the towel on notable, wlel-known terminology with a legitimate history. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you just explain to em the difference between that and the often-repeated satirical comment that "all content should cite sources unless you can't find any"? If it's still uncited after two and a half deletion debates does that not indicate that no valid sources exist? It seems to me as if you are saying we should tear up WP:V and say instead that we shoudl keep all content unless we can prove it's wrong, which is the wrong way round according to our current policies. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration that the article is still not adequately referenced- but this does not indicate that no sources exist. It may indicate that they may be a bit harder to find, as one would expect with all sex-related articles. WP:V is the keystone of Wikipedia, but it's manifestly absurd to delete material that we all KNOW is true. It should be kept with the appropriate 'Verify' template attached. Having no references is obviously not good enough- so we can add this to the other 90% of articles that are not properly sourced. Wikipedia policies are more like a legal framework than scientific laws- unbreakable, but pliable enough to be bent in such a way as to avoid decisions that violate sensible interpretation and common sense. Badgerpatrol 00:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what he said. WP:V, while absolutely necessary, should not act as a roadblock. Especially when we're dealing with otherwise commoin-knowledge subjects. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If sources exist for this article, and those who voted keep care about it enough...how come none have been found after all this time? ^demon[yell at me] /01:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's more the lack of acceptance of the various references in culture than anything else at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. No objections to a transwiki to Wiktionary, if it isn't already there. ergot 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable sexual UL; double jeopardy. Haikupoet 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the kind of thing that Catullus would have claimed is writ on "wind and running water". It's just a definition of a supposed sex act plus examples of the use of the phrase. The Oxford Latin Dictionary does the same thing with words, so this is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. By the way, isn't there a policy on no binding decisions? (WP:NBD)? Deletion discussions should be intitiated at any time, and if multiple users find an article worthy of deletion it should be taken seriously. Erik the Rude 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Requesting that people stop AfDing the same article over and over isn't a violation of NBD. With that logic, better throw the recreastion speedy deletion policy out the window. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and create a seperate disambig page due to all the pop culture references.skorpion 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, referenced by popular culture.  Grue  15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Obviously notable, which is why it has already survived an AfD debate just three months ago. It would be ridiculous for it to be deleted now. --Cheapestcostavoider 04:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give this article a rest. It survived before, as it should've. It's notable, and the article has some sourcing and is relatively fleshed out. joeOnSunset 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of the article is either speculation or a list of cultural references. Should we create a list of every film/book/impeachment hearing where a blowjob is mentioned? OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:JzG & nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Where else is someone going to find this info. This is a pop culture reference and deserves to be defined somewhere.
  • Previous vote given by User:24.90.72.182. Note to closing admin, this AfD is this user's only contrib. ^demon[yell at me] /19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article has relevant information - where else are we supposed to find out what a dirty sanchez is? Hmm? 72.56.10.196 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin, this user has significantly contibuted since April 27. No contribs have ever been in AfD. Contribs ^demon[yell at me] /19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This has already been nominated twice for deletion, and both times it was not. Give it a rest. Djedi 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin, this user has not contibuted since April 25, and only has 5 contribs including this page, none of which were AfD debates. ^demon[yell at me] /19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you attacking all of these users? This isn't adding anything to the debate. --Cheapestcostavoider 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice ad hominem there. You know your argument's strong when you're using ad hominems.. Djedi 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wasn't meaning to attack anyone. I checked ALL usernames and IPs on this page (for both Keep and Delete votes), I just felt that these were the only ones who had questionable histories. It's VERY common for an admin to discount the opinion of someone who this page is their ONLY edit (See User:24.90.72.182), and I myself call into question someone who hasn't edited for about 2 weeks and then suddenly shows up to an AfD without ever doing AfD before. ^demon[yell at me] /21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: to those who voted Keep, would transwikiing to Wiktionary be acceptable to you? If not, what are the problems with doing so? --Philosophus T 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per badlydrawnjeff and previous debates. --TM 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep What the heck does "unverified" mean in this case? Every songle one of us knows what this term means and none of use learned that from this article. The idea expsts outside of wikipedia, and wikipedia is a place to come to find out more about it. . --70.132.28.172 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this is mentioned in various tv and movie programs. This clearly exists outside of wikipedia. Arbusto 07:39, 20 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.