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 1 Redirect, 8 Keep, 9 Delete, so no consensus, unfortunately. Stifle (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like nominating this just three and a half months after a keep vote, but this article violates WP:WINAD, WP:V, and WP:OR. Some of you may think that Wikipedia should be a dictionary, and that neologisms and slang are entirely acceptable, but unverifiable original research is never acceptable. I merged and redirected the article to sexual slang, but was reverted. Given that this article is unacceptable as is, and I was reverted after a merge, I bring it to AfD, and I vote to delete. Brian G. Crawford 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as before, with a clothespin on the nose, and protect if necessary. PJM 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AfD on this and similar topics. There is consensus for now that this sort of common sex slang is individually notable and worthy of inclusion. Istead of having this sort of AfD every couple of weeks, there should instead be a centralized discussion to determine if this sort of thing should have an article, be merged into a sex slang article, or purged. youngamerican (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the previous nomination of this article had a shaky basis (that dirty topics should not be available on wikipedia which is accessible by minors). Objections to the AfD referred to that, not to the policy violations which have been brought up this time. GT 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are some previous AfDs that show a consensus for keep on these sort of articles: [1] [2] [3] [4]. youngamerican (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, and here is the original [5]

Consensus does not support unverifiable original research. Brian G. Crawford 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems that, perhaps because of WP:IAR or because of the common use of this and other related phrases in (at least American) pop culture, there seems to be consensus that this sort of thing belongs in the 'pedia. Additionally, do you believe that the entire article is OR, or just the variation crap that I agree should be removed? youngamerican (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, possibly redirect to slang. For great justice. 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using what reliable source to verify it? Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverified crap. Esquizombi 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. If it needs sources, tag it as such, sheesh. It's obviously quite a notable revolting act, and it's referenced all over the place. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is definately a page worth keeping, I googled "define: cleaveland steamer" after my friend said that he did it to his girlfriend (who he loves and respects) and all I got was this. Without this page I (and many others) would have remained ignorant to the meaning of this disguisting act, and may have used the term unwittingly and been made a complete ass of. It should, however, be preempted with a warning that it contains offensive content and should not be viewed by people who do not wish to be exposed to it. Deleting a term that is so commonly used based on the fact that it is not sourced is ridiculous, I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this? Personally, after reading about it I knew I had to run out and try it and it was awesome. Without this article I would have never discovered my fecophilia —This unsigned comment was added by 65.110.26.195 (talk • contribs) .

The above user's only edits are contributions to this deletion discussion. Brian G. Crawford 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The perfect argument for deletion. If Wikipedia is the primary source, the article is, by definition, original research. No reliable sources were identifiedd during or following the previous AfD, none have been identified yet (God forbid that we ever allow the Urban Dictionary as a reliable source), this article is unverifiable and always has been - so it must go. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ideally there should be some way of warning people who *really* don't want to see this kind of stuff, but then whose criteria would we follow? Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, and it could be the thin end of a very large wedge. Probably better to categorise appropriately and let others develop their own solutions. Fourohfour 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "I mean who is going to do scholarly research on something like this?" That's part of the problem and part of why it should be deleted. Some people evidently get their jollies out of inventing fictional sex acts and creating names for those acts, and then inventing fictional variations thereon and names for those variations... but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Is the Cleveland Steamer real, and are the variations on it real? There's no WP:V way of knowing that from the article, which is full of unsourced claims and speculation. Actual practices that are actually used, that are preferably documented by sex researchers is what is desireable for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places on the web to develop unencylopedic total BS. Esquizombi 14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be worth your not looking at it from a strictly academic standpoint. It's possible no one's actually performed the Cleveland Steamer. It doesn't mean that the concept didn't make the rounds in, say, a song by platinum music group Tenacious D or in an official FCC government document. The concept may be false, but the usage of the term is absolutely real and encyclopedic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If the unsourced claims in the introduction and the unsourced variations can be pared down to what can be sourced through popular culture references, maybe the article could be kept. Do you think that would be acceptable, or is all the BS going to keep creeping back in? Esquizombi 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously, original research should be discouraged. My point is that the issue for this article in particular isn't that it should be deleted, but rather that it should be cleaned up. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Note that the reference in the government document is nothing more than its presence in a quoted television transcript that the FCC considers obscenity. We've already established that the words have a meaning, so this in no way furthers your argument. GT 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I just fixed the article, removing everything I couldn't verify. My reliable source is some guy named Adam that I met at Dartmouth College in 1992. Somehow, I don't think that's how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. If WP:IAR applies, however, then I should be able to reap the benefits of that view as well and do whatever I want with Cleveland steamer. My facetious little point is that you can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim that WP:IAR applies and allows you to keep the steamer, then I can say that it also applies to me and I can edit it, merge it, or redirect it however I see fit without approval from anyone. If this indeed is the consensus, that WP:IAR applies, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination and just merge and redirect as the spirit moves me. Brian G. Crawford 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure how much leeway ArbCom or an admin would give you if you got into a post-AfD edit war by using IAR (which may be your point). As it stands, I am not thrilled with the inclusion of this sort of stuff on AfD, but consensus is pretty clear thusfar, and part of the manner that AfD (and frankly any semi/quasi/pseudo-judicial body) gains credibility is a respect for consensus and precendent. At AfD, we interpret if a given article is consistent with inclusion guidelines or, if no guidelines are explicitly set, past consensus on AfD. This debate should be moved over to a centralized discussion to establish notability guidelines for ths sort of article (where we would likely be on the same side). That is where we legislate guidelines, this is where we follow through with consistency. That being said, your latest stub version is a vast improvement, as sometimes the best edit is a mass-deletion. youngamerican (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assure you, I have no intention of violating WP:POINT. I was just making a rhetorical point. I would like to see all these sexual urban legends moved to a single page where content could be carefully monitored to prevent vandalism, ad hoc neologisms, and endless lists of frivolous "pop culture references." I really don't see the encyclopedic value in noting every time the Dirty Sanchez is mentioned in teen movies and cartoons. Some people, probably mostly children, think that these "sex moves" are the funniest thing they've ever heard of, and seem to want to share this kind of thing with anyone they can. Maybe this sort of humor serves the purpose of alleviating anxiety about sexual activity. Maybe writing articles like this one gives the author the same kind of thrill as writing an obscene message in a public place. I don't know. I could write pages on why this kind of article hurts the Wikipedia project, but AfD isn't the place. I agree that there probably should be a centralized discussion on sexual slang articles. Brian G. Crawford 03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Can you please clarify how making a rhetorical point doesn't violate WP:POINT? In addition, whilst I agree that there are too many cases in Wikipedia of "In film Y, X was mentioned", this applies to *many* articles. I've said this elsewhere, but I believe you're focussing on articles for things you dislike personally (which I believe is reflected in your comments above and some others). Regarding this and related AfDs, you make some valid points and I'm quite happy to agree with you in principle on them (regardless of your opinion of me which is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion). However, I believe you're being very selective about the sort of articles you apply the rules to; very stringent regarding the verifiability rules and quite willing to delete material for this article. At the same time, you practically disregard WP:POINT. Fourohfour 12:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOT censored, stop renominating this for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer had a very clear consensus. Silensor 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No verifiable reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. FloNight ^talk 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is accurate sexual slang. Deleting it is neo-puritanical censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.180.51 (talk • contribs) The vote above is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Please refrain from making false accusations. This is not about censorship, but about the issues raised above such as WP:WINAD, WP:V, and WP:OR. If you want the article to be kept, then address those issues — which should have been addressed some time ago. If they can't be addressed, as I suspect, let the article die as it should. Esquizombi 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - I knew this sort of thing would happen when you guys VFD'd Unusual Sexual Practices where this was an entry. Fine... pay for it now!  :) Oscar Arias 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've removed the original research template and identified the article as a stub. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but stubs can be dictionary definitions that will be expanded into articles later. The article does contain links to sources, thus making the original research template misleading here. -- backburner001 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has repeatedly accused me of vandalism for removing unverifiable and unsourced material. Brian G. Crawford 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Not one of those "sources" is a WP:RS so OR may still apply. Esquizombi 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue of reliable sources is different from claiming that there is original research in the article. I attempted to change to a different template that identified the issue of whether or not the sources are reliable, but my attempts at doing such continue to be reverted. If the discussion over this nomination is framed correctly, I will consider changing my vote. Until then, I can only assume that this article was nominated in bad faith. -- backburner001 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this user is accusing me of acting in bad faith. I'm sick of his accusations, his rude comments, and his harassment here and on my talk page. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a fictional sex act which, save for its presence on popular internet lists of humorous extreme (and fictional) sex acts, would not have a name. Thus this article will never be able to be expanded to have any content other than what it is and where it originated. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so such entries don't belong here. GT 21:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe me, I hate to disappoint you here, but sadly this sex act is not fictional. There are plenty of internet videos which will, unfortunately, corroborate this. Your opinion that this article cannot ever be expanded is quite limited. Silensor 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice - IE no replacement. The act is one thing which may or may not occur, and has perfectly goodadequate words to describe it with in English. WP is not a thesaurus and there is no need for this paraphilic euphemism to have an encyclopaedia article. If it made it into an article on coprophilia, as a clause in a line, then that might be encyclopaedic, and would properly be a mattter for the editors collaborating on that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talk • contribs) 19:48, April 5, 2006
• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast83 (talk • contribs) 00:45, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is simply a dic def and does not show relevence. GilliamJF 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only is it sexcruft of the worst kind, neither of the cited sources is reliable, so it is unverifiable by policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into sexual slang. bbx 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The article is valid. Deleting it is censorship. Manufracture 02:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. Sandstein 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The article is valid. I have seen it. I have done it. The fact that so many people have had issue with this entry means that it exists. Those who disagree with this entry are censoring because it does not show relevence in Their lives.

Comment, I see this is your first edit. If you realized what AfD were for you would know that they are not about censoring articles. Radagast83 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• very weak KEEP If it needs verification and sources, perhaps we should tag it as such? I'm scared of what sort of sources we'd find on it though. Oh dear God, how I'm scared. Sethimothy 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.