385:. Every time this has been nominated, those voting "keep" have said that it can be more than a dicdef with a laundry list of uses in pop culture if only someone would clean it up. Every time it hasn't happened. In this case, rather than the norm of assuming that multiple previous failed nominations strengthens an article's case for being kept, I think the multiple times the article has failed to satisfy the condition of the conditional keeps indicates that is will never satisfy such a condition. There just doesn't seem to be any meaningful scholarship on the term, and we don't publish an article about a term on the strength of mere examples of usage and the existence of a definition. —
309:. There's been a quite lengthy period since the last afd, and the current article is still not clearly within policy boundaries. As Saxifrage notes, promised fleshing out of the article into something encyclopedic has not occured. Last afd ended in no consensus as well. The article hasn't been nominated that many times anyway. If articles aren't brought well into bounds of policy, they remain vulnerable to legitimate afd nomination. No need to assume bad faith at all
1070:.I found this article useful. Being a nerd who was unfamiliar with this term, rather than doing an internet search which would have just turned up a bunch of porn, I came to wikipedia. The definition was simple, without porn, and I now know what the term means. I would venture to guess that the people who would like this entry deleted are working from a moral objection, rather than a "purity of wikipedia" standpoint.
521:- this is a dicdef for a slang term. None of teh references cited in the article are references useful for the expansionof the article. In fact, the weight of the article is really turning it into a list of refrences to the term in popular culture. The fact that the term is used a lot doesn't make this any less of a dicdef. --
410:
Not necessarily. In some cases this is due to a lack of attention by editors, and that doesn't warrant deletion. In others it is a lack of attention by the rest of the world in a form that we can legitimately reference. Which one it is tends to be a judgement call. In this case there has been enough
237:
Except that this "could" is not so obvious to everyone. The fact that it hasn't been cleaned up indicates to me that it cannot be, rather than could be. I've tried to find reliable sources to start a cleanup and failed. (Note that none in the article currently qualify as reliable sources as they're
580:
as dicdef; same thing I !voted last time (and the time before that, I think). If anything, this article seems like it has gotten shorter since the last time it was here at AfD. It is currently a one-sentence dicdef followed by a lengthy "Usage in entertainment" section
597:-- This a useful and well-written article about a popular term of pop culture. It is also the name of the most sucessful hockey team in the history of the Electronic Fantasy Hockey Leauge, and was also made into a hit by international recording artist Brody.
98:
Nothing but a slang dicdef. Knowledge is not a dictionary or usage guide of slang. The article looks big because of a big collection of usage cases, which is hardly an encyclopedic purpose to list where in movied a particular obscenity has been used.
827:
the next person who finds it necessary to renominate this for deletion. What I would like to see is this ever-evolving and well-referenced article brought up to
Featured Article status, even if it doesn't have a shot at making Main Page.
173:
just a dicdef, followed by a list of random references that do nothing more than prove that it's a dicdef. If anyone can figure out how to make any sort of halfway meaningful article out of it, even a stub, I'll be happy to change my vote.
431:
Note: I don't see a merge as being viable. The information would still lack sources beyond "x has said it" ones, which are inadequate for
Knowledge's purposes in any article. The only alternative to straight deletion I see is to
837:
Thank you for volunteering to help fix the article. Note that I plan on personally renominating this if six months from now it is still a dicdef + list of attestations, so mind where you say you'll put your knuckles and keep
262:-- I realize we don't have a concept of double jeopardy around here, but seriously. It may be wise to talk to the nominator and see if sanctions are required as well, since this is bordering on a bad faith nomination.
790:
78:
242:
be the subject of scholarship does not mean that is has been. Since we don't publish original research, such scholarship-in-potential must happen and be found by an editor before we can justify an article here. —
82:
86:
759:
No, but being a definition makes it more suited for a dictionary. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered. I still think it should be merged, but there's not enough here to merit a standalone article.
698:. Looks like a highly-referenced article on a sexual act. Unlikely to be found in many dictionaries. Per the outcomes of the many previous excessive noms, subject deserves inclusion here. --
411:
attention at AfDs and in managing vandalism of the article that I'm leaning heavily to seeing the lack of cleanup as a lack of possibility of cleanup rather than a lack of will to do it. —
990:. The article has been saved from deletion before on the argument that it can be expanded, and it hasn't been expanded all four times. Is this because no-one has bothered, or because it
284:
It's been brought up so many times that the nominator is either ignorant or trying to force an issue that should have been dead after, oh, about the third try. It is not clear which.
74:
681:
Yes, the definition and attestations are sourced, but there is nothing else. How does the the dicdef being well-sourced make the fact that it's a dicdef irrelevant? —
219:
Only because we've got some issues with what's deemed "reliable." Stubs are, minimally, dicdefs, and there's no question as to how well known this term is and how it
1088:
per Improv. Knowledge is not
Wiktionary. Wiktionary can just go away and nobody would miss it. Also, 5th nom? Yeah, keep, for whatever reason it was kept before.
582:
113:
this nomination needs to be fixed. First the title on the top needs to be to the article in question not to the AFD discussion itself. Second this is the
469:
per above. This is a textbook dict def; I'm not even sure why there's so much discussion here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash out my brain.
963:, and hasn't managed to expand beyond that in the entire time that it's been here. This belongs in a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has it.
504:
341:
Plenty of sources. The popular culture references demontrates more than a dictionary. I'm bothered by so many previous nominations (another
401:
If an article is continuously "unclean", is that in itself a reason to delete? This is just a genuine question and not meant to counter. --
926:
638:
1060:. Google returns approximately 105,000 matches for the term, so it is likely that people will turn to Knowledge for this information.
613:
361:: LOL at the Stassen reference. (I think that may be the first time I ever typed LOL on Knowledge.) But amazingly, it's not even close.
641:, which is all that it is now. (For example, the term "sayonara" is obviously notable, but we don't have an article about the word.) —
1104:
1092:
1080:
1049:
1015:
1001:
981:
967:
941:
898:
886:
874:
858:
849:
832:
815:
781:
763:
752:
738:
718:
702:
688:
676:
648:
628:
589:
572:
560:
546:
537:
525:
511:
489:
473:
461:
443:
418:
405:
392:
373:
349:
333:
313:
300:
288:
279:
266:
250:
232:
214:
194:
178:
154:
133:
121:
103:
59:
542:
Still, most people usually prefer to keep poo in a separate, preferrably remote, place and not spread it all over the dining table.
362:
23:
895:
17:
117:
5th not the second AFD. Finally, there is no notice on the article about the article about the AFD. It needs to be added. --
457:. As it stands, it really hasn't/probably can't expand much beyond a dicdef. Would be better suited for that article.
293:
I'd strongly suspect just unaware of the previous nominations, given the brokenness of the nomination at first. —
1119:
534:
43:
994:
be expanded? (I tried to, so I've already decided for myself what the answer to that rhetorical question is.) —
882:, verifiable info about a sexual slang term. I would prefer keep over merge, to let the article grow over time.
1118:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
907:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1011:
977:
922:
228:
150:
609:
1045:
810:
1007:
973:
918:
533:. Poo-related articles come in handy for learning about health effects from fecally-based activities. --
224:
146:
605:
569:
1041:
186:
Would
Knowledge really be worse off without this stupid article? Furthermore, is it necessary to have
118:
1037:
914:
601:
486:
1089:
998:
987:
846:
735:
685:
645:
500:
440:
415:
389:
297:
247:
207:
191:
130:
798:
402:
346:
715:
145:. Five AfDs, plenty of verifiable mentions, this isn't going to (and shouldn't) go anywhere. --
670:
65:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1100:. This isn't a helpful discussion anymore. 3 was enough, 4 was bad and this is just silly. --
950:
839:
557:
543:
995:
938:
871:
843:
732:
682:
642:
437:
412:
386:
342:
294:
285:
263:
244:
127:
56:
949:
this article provides a synopsis of a wonderful and multifaceted piece of
Americana.--
169:. Badlydrawnjeff is probably right that we'll just get another "no consensus", but it
855:
829:
760:
749:
724:
508:
458:
306:
211:
100:
824:
663:
637:
under debate is whether it can be more than a dictionary definition with a list of
625:
470:
1101:
1077:
794:
778:
774:
659:
482:
454:
330:
310:
276:
275:
What's the evidence for "bordering on a bad faith nomination"? I don't see any.
165:
797:
over a delete, however, if consensus tends towards getting rid of the article.
964:
586:
370:
203:
175:
210:
on this. It's a dicdef, with loads of citations, but still just a dicdef.
699:
522:
883:
329:
Dicdef. Popular culture references are of negligible encyclopedic value
633:
Whether it's notable isn't being questioned—it's clearly notable. What
624:
please it is notable term we do not need to keep renominating this one
190:
slang term in
Knowledge? Perhaps this might be better at Wiktionary.
748:. Just because it's disgusting doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic.--
711:
1112:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
24:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (2 nomination)
937:
per the above. How many times do we have to discuss this? --
1076:. Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary, what more do people want? --
238:
mere examples of usage.) Essentially, the fact that this
1061:
728:
499:
to wiktionary. Numerous mentions ranging from 2001 (
986:
People predict the future all the time, it's called
583:
Manual of Style: Avoid trivia sections in articles
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1122:). No further edits should be made to this page.
710:. To warn users about the health effects of
8:
1006:I'll answer it for you - it's the former. --
793:on this article. I'd prefer a merge into
894:. JMFC, 5th nomination? Come on people.
485:, as per GassyGuy. Otherwise delete. --
327:Delete/ possible redirect as per Aaron
162:, with secondary !vote/suggestion to
7:
436:to Wiktionary per Interiot below. —
31:
972:So you can predict the future? --
73:Previously nominated four times:
223:be expanded with some sanity. --
777:per Aaron and BrownHairedGirl.
503:) to 2006 means it meets their
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
658:well referenced, so it passes
1:
662:, thats good enough for me.
568:I found it a useful article.
1105:12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1093:17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1081:11:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1016:03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1002:02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
982:00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
968:00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
942:15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
910:10:58, 29 October 2006(UTC)
899:10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
887:02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
875:02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
859:01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
850:01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
833:00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
816:12:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
782:20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
764:03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
753:22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
739:21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
719:21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
703:18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
689:19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
677:03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
649:02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
629:01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
590:19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
573:19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
561:17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
556:slang dicdef, nothing more.
547:17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
538:17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
526:16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
512:04:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
490:04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
474:03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
462:03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
444:04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
419:04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
406:03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
393:02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
374:17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
350:02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
334:01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
314:03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
301:02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
289:01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
280:01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
267:00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
251:02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
233:00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
215:00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
195:23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
179:23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
155:22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
134:22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
122:20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
104:19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
60:00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
908:Someone who found it useful
1139:
896:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude
870:this unexpandable dicdef
365:has been up for deletion
1115:Please do not modify it.
789:per my reasoning in the
345:afd award contender). --
39:Please do not modify it.
1064:03:36, 1 November 2006
854:LOL, you're welcome!
535:Clarenceville Trojan
505:attestation criteria
988:inductive reasoning
961:one-sentence dicdef
501:Mr. Saturday Knight
208:User:Johnbrownsbody
1098:Strong Speedy Keep
892:Strong Speedy Keep
1054:
1040:comment added by
1014:
980:
931:
917:comment added by
814:
618:
604:comment added by
231:
153:
66:Cleveland steamer
22:(Redirected from
1130:
1117:
1053:
1034:
1010:
976:
930:
911:
808:
806:
802:
675:
668:
617:
598:
227:
149:
41:
27:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1120:deletion review
1113:
1035:
912:
823:, and possibly
804:
800:
673:
664:
599:
487:BrownHairedGirl
367:seventeen times
69:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1136:
1134:
1125:
1124:
1108:
1107:
1095:
1090:SchmuckyTheCat
1083:
1071:
1065:
1055:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1008:badlydrawnjeff
974:badlydrawnjeff
954:
953:
944:
932:
919:71.196.129.136
901:
889:
877:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
818:
784:
767:
766:
756:
755:
743:
742:
741:
705:
693:
692:
691:
653:
652:
651:
619:
592:
575:
563:
551:
550:
549:
528:
515:
514:
494:
493:
492:
464:
448:
447:
446:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
396:
395:
379:
378:
377:
376:
353:
352:
343:Harold Stassen
336:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
303:
270:
269:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
225:badlydrawnjeff
197:
192:Johnbrownsbody
181:
157:
147:badlydrawnjeff
139:
138:
137:
136:
107:
106:
92:
91:
68:
63:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1135:
1123:
1121:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
966:
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
948:
945:
943:
940:
936:
933:
928:
924:
920:
916:
909:
905:
902:
900:
897:
893:
890:
888:
885:
881:
878:
876:
873:
869:
866:
860:
857:
853:
852:
851:
848:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
831:
826:
822:
819:
817:
812:
807:
803:
796:
792:
788:
785:
783:
780:
776:
772:
769:
768:
765:
762:
758:
757:
754:
751:
747:
744:
740:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
706:
704:
701:
697:
694:
690:
687:
684:
680:
679:
678:
672:
669:
667:
661:
657:
654:
650:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
627:
623:
620:
615:
611:
607:
606:68.161.100.78
603:
596:
593:
591:
588:
584:
579:
576:
574:
571:
570:194.97.160.92
567:
564:
562:
559:
555:
552:
548:
545:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
529:
527:
524:
520:
517:
516:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
491:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
465:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
445:
442:
439:
435:
430:
429:
428:
427:
420:
417:
414:
409:
408:
407:
404:
403:Marriedtofilm
400:
399:
398:
397:
394:
391:
388:
384:
383:Strong delete
381:
380:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
347:Marriedtofilm
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
328:
325:
324:
315:
312:
308:
304:
302:
299:
296:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
252:
249:
246:
241:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
196:
193:
189:
185:
184:Strong Delete
182:
180:
177:
172:
168:
167:
161:
158:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
140:
135:
132:
129:
125:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
109:
108:
105:
102:
97:
94:
93:
90:
88:
84:
80:
76:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
1114:
1111:
1097:
1085:
1073:
1067:
1057:
1042:24.22.97.165
1036:— Preceding
1030:
991:
960:
946:
934:
913:— Preceding
903:
891:
879:
867:
825:donkey punch
820:
799:
786:
773:or merge to
770:
745:
707:
695:
665:
655:
639:attestations
634:
621:
600:— Preceding
594:
577:
565:
553:
530:
518:
496:
478:
466:
450:
433:
382:
366:
358:
338:
326:
259:
239:
220:
199:
187:
183:
170:
164:redirect to
163:
159:
142:
114:
110:
95:
72:
53:no consensus
52:
50:
38:
35:
1062:Yamaguchi先生
959:No, it's a
951:MattDawg579
842:in mind. —
795:coprophilia
775:Coprophilia
723:User is an
595:Strong Keep
483:coprophilia
455:coprophilia
166:Coprophilia
119:70.48.110.3
947:do not del
939:Myles Long
880:Keep/Merge
872:➥the Epopt
558:Mukadderat
544:Mukadderat
204:User:Aaron
101:mikkanarxi
996:Saxifrage
844:Saxifrage
733:Saxifrage
683:Saxifrage
643:Saxifrage
497:Transwiki
438:Saxifrage
434:transwiki
413:Saxifrage
387:Saxifrage
339:Weak Keep
295:Saxifrage
286:Haikupoet
264:Haikupoet
245:Saxifrage
202:I'm with
128:Saxifrage
126:Fixed. —
57:RFerreira
1050:contribs
1038:unsigned
927:contribs
915:unsigned
906:.Please
856:Silensor
840:WP:CIVIL
830:Silensor
811:ahoy hoy
805:american
761:GassyGuy
750:Folksong
614:contribs
602:unsigned
509:Interiot
459:GassyGuy
212:Emeraude
791:2nd AfD
666:ALKIVAR
626:Yuckfoo
471:eaolson
359:Comment
111:Comment
1102:Apyule
1078:Improv
1074:Delete
868:Delete
779:Edison
771:Delete
729:vandal
578:Delete
554:Delete
519:Delete
331:Bwithh
311:Bwithh
307:WP:CCC
277:Bwithh
200:Delete
160:Delete
992:can't
965:ergot
801:young
716:UPN50
712:feces
587:ergot
507:. --
479:Merge
467:Merge
451:Merge
371:Aaron
240:could
221:could
188:every
176:Aaron
16:<
1086:Keep
1068:Keep
1058:Keep
1046:talk
1031:Keep
1012:talk
978:talk
935:Keep
923:talk
904:Keep
821:Keep
787:Keep
746:Keep
731:. —
727:and
714:. --
708:Keep
700:JJay
696:Keep
660:WP:V
656:Keep
622:keep
610:talk
585:).
566:Keep
531:Keep
523:Whpq
369:. --
363:GNAA
305:See
260:Keep
229:talk
206:and
151:talk
143:Keep
884:bbx
725:SPA
481:to
453:to
115:4th
96:del
87:4th
83:3rd
79:2nd
75:1st
55:.
1052:)
1048:•
1033:.
929:)
925:•
635:is
616:)
612:•
174:--
171:is
99:`'
85:,
81:,
77:,
1044:(
999:✎
921:(
847:✎
813:)
809:(
736:✎
686:✎
674:☢
671:™
646:✎
608:(
581:(
441:✎
416:✎
390:✎
298:✎
248:✎
131:✎
89:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.