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 keep. Certainly no consensus to delete; opinion remains also divided about whether it should be merged, but that discussion may continue elsewhere. I note that the article has been much improved since its nomination, so the earlier "delete" opinions are taken into account less.  Sandstein  16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is such an obvious delete I'm not even sure why we need to have this conversation, but oh well. We're not a dictionary and this is a dictionary definition. I rest my case. JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons I've outlined as nominator, this is a clear violation of WP:NOT policy. JBsupreme (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd say delete because it doesn't provide enough evidence of meeting either WP:V or WP:NOTE. Unschool (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JBsupreme. I also believe this article would fall into the WP:NOT policy as well. Beano (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that this article has survived three AfD processes already. For details, see the Talk Page. I'm not going to vote either way as I don't intend to do any further research, which would be necessary for me to make an informed response. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it survived five AfDs previously. This one is number six. See the "AfDs for this article" list, just above here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Merge to Coprophilia. Wikipedia's not a dictionary and it's hard to trust any content that gets added to this page. There was a sentence about the act being performed on a sex tape created by former Saved by the Bell actor Dustin Diamond, but I got the sense that people were adding that because it was amusing -- not because it was notable. Because of the prurient nature of the article subject, it will be hard to find any reliable sources to support the article's content -- probably dooming it to being a list of when it's been referenced in pop culture. Switzpaw (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look at this recent edit since my above comment: Gustavo Arellano in his ¡Ask a Mexican! column explains the origin of the term by the fact that thick moustache is a stereotype of a Mexican in the United States.[2]. Is this guy a Dirty Sanchez scholar? What Arellano says is very plausible but what makes him reliable? WP:Notability says sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, and it's going to be an uphill battle for Dirty Sanchez.

• Keep. Much as I hate various stupidity in wikipedia, the mere existence of the disambiguation page vouches for the notability/notoriety of the term. Also, it is not a dicdef, because the article is nota about a word, but about an alleged sexual act. `'Míkka>t 07:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the disambig. argument flies. It could easily be unlinked and be covered in coprophilia. Switzpaw (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Coprophilia. And what mikkalai means is that the disambiguation page shows that quite a few things are actually named after this, proving it is (relatively) widely known and thus notable. --131.211.156.215 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Etymology, notability and legal aspects now supported by reliable sources. Nomination rationale no longer applies. McWomble (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. In response to the nom, no it is NOT an obvious delete -- note that this article has survived multiple AFDs. WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyway, it's got sources that establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sex act itself is clearly notable, so that's not an issue. And this isn't a "Wikipedia's Not A Dictionary" issue, because we're not talking about a word, per se, but a sex act; deleting this would be similar to deleting the article on fellatio. The article needs to be expanded, I think - right now it's little more than a stub - simply because the "dirty sanchez" seems to be an example of a sex act that exists more in the public consciousness (through jokes, pop culture references, etc.) than in actual practice - Dan Savage once claimed that no one has ever performed a dirty sanchez, that it's "completely fictional," [1] which in and of itself makes the dirty sanchez an example of an interesting phenomenon. Fumoses (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep References to the "Dirty Sanchez" appear throughout our culture and the prevalence and usage of the term is increasing. A compilation of verifiable information about this practice and its place in popular culture is consistent with the Wikipedia's mission. How many AfD's does an article have to survive until people will no longer assault it? Guess this is attempt number 4. WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is still a dictionary definition with an etymology (also fitting for a dictionary). But wait, Wikipedia is not a dictionary you say? Get rid of this crap. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete surprisingly not notable, with most hits in WP:RS not actually being about this act. [2]. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The fact that this article survived five four AfDs, with the dicdef argument strongly played, show that the community has spoken over a period of time. Sorry, but I don't see this as a obvious deletion, rather I see it as a obvious keep. I also fail to understand why yet another AfD was initiated. The term is clearly way more than a dictionary definition since it about a sexual act, not just a word. It's notable, as shown by sufficient RS and cultural references. Although it could be expanded. — Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CCC. The sources provided within the article are either not substantial or unreliable. JBsupreme (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus can change (although I believe it's rare), but the other side of that coin is forum shopping. At some point the combined weight of multiple keep consensus based AfD decisions are clearly for inclusion. And these were Keep closures, not "No consensus, defaulting to Keep", which show a very strong longitudinal consensus to Keep. And if the sources need improvement, then we fix them, although they seem sufficient to me, and several other editors here, and they were sufficient in previous AfDs. From WP:DEL, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. AfD is not for cleanup and deletion should be reserved for articles that cannot be improved no matter what. I'm assuming good faith that this is all intended to improve Wikipedia, but aren't multiple AfDs (and possible DRVs) for one article counter productive? — Becksguy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stern's use of the racist slang is sufficient to make it notable. Unfortunately. (The most recent AfD was 2006, so I do not consider this an unreasonable nomination. ) DGG (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The racist slang is more notable than the sexual act, but is not this article or the subject of it. It's probably already in a list of racist slang or something, or should be. Anyway, that's not about the subject of this article, and just goes to show that other uses of the phrase are more notable than this. How about a merge to that telly prog with the same name? I think they named themselves after this mythical practice. Sticky Parkin 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Coprophilia.Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this phrase is really just a childish joke. I'm sure someone somewhere has done it (such is the nature of human beings), but 99.99999% of references to it just involve someone explaining the term and its definition, followed by the inevitable "ew... that's sick!". It's not encyclopedic. --SJK (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's gross, but WP isn't censored. "Childish joke" and "ew... that's sick" are not policy/guideline based reasons to delete, they seem to be more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying that something isn't encyclopedic doesn't really explain why. And as argued here by several editors, this article is about the sexual act, not the definition of the word. — Becksguy (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but this article is still an under-glorified dictionary definition, and we delete those all the time. WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. The article is reasonably encyclopedic now. Mukadderat (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Coprophilia, with about the same level of coverage as "Cleveland Steamer" and "Hot Carl". This strikes a balance between the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" delete votes and the "reliably sourced" keep votes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I just merged Cleveland steamer into the coprophilia article, and will gladly do the same for this one. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added a new section about the veracity of the act and a very heavily implied description of the act in a British television advertisement. This clearly exists outside a dictionary. There is also scope for a more in depth analysis of the original racist slang. Tate goes into some detail about this but replicating it all from the one source would be a copyvio. There is also plenty of scope for citing more opinions about whether the sex act is real or an urban legend. This discussion has now been open for 5 days and there is clearly (at worst) no consensus, which is borne out by the three previous AfDs where the consensus was to keep a much shorter and unsourced article. McWomble (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The thought disgusts me but that is irrelevant. This is not an obvious delete. Much shorter and less informative versions that were kept. The article as it currently stands is an obvious keep. Cosmomancer (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Especially since it has been used as the title for a movie, and has had various other pop culture references. This is not an obvious delete at all, to be honest. — neuro^(talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content does not go beyond dictionary definition and trivia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect into Coprophilia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:38, 26 October 2008 (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.