570:? In addition, whilst I agree that there are too many cases in Knowledge 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
514:
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.
324:
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
550:
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
Knowledge project, but AfD isn't the place. I agree that there probably should be a centralized discussion on sexual slang articles.
504:. 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.
790:. 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. Knowledge is not a dictionary so such entries don't belong here.
395:"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
513:
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
382:
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? Knowledge 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
323:
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
764:
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
722:
I've removed the original research template and identified the article as a stub. Knowledge 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
549:
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
113:
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
228:
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?
448:
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?
142:: 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.
479:
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.
416:
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
799:
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.
495:
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 Knowledge article is supposed to be written. If
948:
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
407:. 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.
81:. Some of you may think that Knowledge 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
363:. 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
688:. 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.
458:
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. --
597:
975:
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.
765:
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. --
777:
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.
545:
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,
177:
327:
826:, as a clause in a line, then that might be encyclopaedic, and would properly be a mattter for the editors collaborating on that article.
304:. 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. --
655:
339:
175:
85:, 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
979:
965:
940:
928:
916:
900:
884:
804:
794:
781:
769:
756:
737:
727:
708:
692:
665:
630:
604:
578:
554:
532:
508:
484:
469:
453:
440:
411:
387:
377:
351:
315:
296:
280:
263:
247:
219:
199:
160:
146:
132:
105:
92:
57:
869:
961:, I see this is your first edit. If you realized what AfD were for you would know that they are not about censoring articles.
17:
842:
822:
and there is no need for this paraphilic euphemism to have an encyclopaedia article. If it made it into an article on
676:
Please refrain from making false accusations. This is not about censorship, but about the issues raised above such as
892:
not only is it sexcruft of the worst kind, neither of the cited sources is reliable, so it is unverifiable by policy.
994:
36:
993:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
209:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
701:
500:
applies, however, then I should be able to reap the benefits of that view as well and do whatever I want with
464:
435:
310:
651:
335:
260:
527:
242:
194:
127:
778:
734:
662:
551:
505:
348:
216:
89:
459:
430:
305:
814:
with prejudice - IE no replacement. The act is one thing which may or may not occur, and has perfectly
733:
The above user has repeatedly accused me of vandalism for removing unverifiable and unsourced material.
647:
331:
173:
925:
359:
The perfect argument for deletion. If
Knowledge is the primary source, the article is, by definition,
69:
I don't like nominating this just three and a half months after a keep vote, but this article violates
865:
857:
830:
643:
881:
639:
The article is accurate sexual slang. Deleting it is neo-puritanical censorship plain and simple.
179:
766:
724:
628:
515:
230:
182:
115:
838:
501:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
791:
481:
143:
53:
976:
962:
861:
753:
689:
677:
575:
571:
567:
538:
450:
408:
384:
293:
157:
70:
937:
893:
801:
621:
601:
593:
497:
422:
404:
396:
370:
360:
273:
225:
909:
834:
749:
685:
617:
82:
78:
399:. Is the Cleveland Steamer real, and are the variations on it real? There's no
823:
705:
681:
613:
418:
400:
365:
74:
49:
429:
may be false, but the usage of the term is absolutely real and encyclopedic. --
819:
347:
The above user's only edits are contributions to this deletion discussion.
913:
102:
114:
should have an article, be merged into a sex slang article, or purged.
101:
as before, with a clothespin on the nose, and protect if necessary.
880:. This article is simply a dic def and does not show relevence.
987:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
661:
The vote above is this user's only contribution to
Knowledge.
44:
The result of the debate was 1 Redirect, 8 Keep, 9 Delete, so
700:- I knew this sort of thing would happen when you guys VFD'd
818:
adequate words to describe it with in
English. WP is not a
215:
Consensus does not support unverifiable original research.
403:
way of knowing that from the article, which is full of
704:
where this was an entry. Fine... pay for it now! Â :)
168:
Here are some previous AfDs that show a consensus for
397:
Knowledge is not for things made up in school one day
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
924:The article is valid. Deleting it is censorship.
598:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer
997:). No further edits should be made to this page.
596:censored, stop renominating this for deletion,
537:I assure you, I have no intention of violating
8:
272:Using what reliable source to verify it?
562:: Can you please clarify how making a
224:But it seems that, perhaps because of
369:and always has been - so it must go.
7:
383:others develop their own solutions.
612:No verifiable reliable sources per
24:
208:Oh yea, and here is the original
748:Not one of those "sources" is a
423:official FCC government document
405:unsourced claims and speculation
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
259:, possibly redirect to slang.
1:
600:had a very clear consensus.
172:on these sort of articles:
1014:
872:) 00:45, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC)
297:20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
264:20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
248:20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
220:20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
200:20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
161:20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
133:20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
106:20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
93:19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
980:00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
966:19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
941:08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
929:02:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
917:22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
901:21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
885:14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
805:22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
795:21:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
782:22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
770:21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
757:13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
738:21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
728:05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
709:04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
693:04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
666:21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
631:04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
605:03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
579:12:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
555:03:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
533:01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
509:17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
485:21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
470:14:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
454:14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
441:14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
412:14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
388:11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
378:21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
352:21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
316:03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
281:21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
147:21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
58:00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
990:Please do not modify it.
702:Unusual Sexual Practices
32:Please do not modify it.
752:so OR may still apply.
541:. I was just making a
845:) 19:48, April 5, 2006
566:point doesn't violate
330:comment was added by
817:
261:For great justice.
874:
860:comment added by
847:
833:comment added by
815:
779:Brian G. Crawford
735:Brian G. Crawford
663:Brian G. Crawford
660:
646:comment added by
552:Brian G. Crawford
531:
506:Brian G. Crawford
502:Cleveland steamer
468:
439:
361:original research
349:Brian G. Crawford
343:
314:
292:Unverified crap.
246:
217:Brian G. Crawford
198:
131:
90:Brian G. Crawford
64:Cleveland steamer
48:, unfortunately.
1005:
992:
897:
873:
854:
846:
827:
659:
640:
626:
525:
523:
519:
462:
433:
374:
325:
308:
277:
240:
238:
234:
192:
190:
186:
125:
123:
119:
34:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
995:deletion review
988:
895:
855:
828:
641:
622:
521:
517:
372:
275:
236:
232:
188:
184:
121:
117:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1011:
1009:
1000:
999:
983:
982:
973:very weak KEEP
969:
968:
955:
954:
943:
931:
919:
903:
887:
875:
848:
809:
808:
807:
775:
774:
773:
772:
759:
731:
730:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
634:
633:
607:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
474:
473:
472:
460:badlydrawnjeff
431:badlydrawnjeff
390:
380:
345:
344:
318:
306:badlydrawnjeff
299:
286:
285:
284:
283:
267:
266:
253:
252:
251:
250:
213:
212:
211:
203:
202:
163:
150:
149:
136:
135:
108:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1010:
998:
996:
991:
985:
984:
981:
978:
974:
971:
970:
967:
964:
960:
957:
956:
952:
947:
944:
942:
939:
935:
932:
930:
927:
923:
920:
918:
915:
911:
907:
906:Keep or merge
904:
902:
899:
891:
888:
886:
883:
879:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
852:
849:
844:
840:
836:
832:
825:
821:
813:
810:
806:
803:
798:
797:
796:
793:
789:
786:
785:
784:
783:
780:
771:
768:
767:backburner001
763:
760:
758:
755:
751:
747:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
736:
729:
726:
725:backburner001
721:
718:
717:
710:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
664:
657:
653:
649:
648:24.223.180.51
645:
638:
632:
629:
627:
625:
619:
615:
611:
608:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
580:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
557:
556:
553:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
529:
524:
520:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
494:
486:
483:
478:
475:
471:
466:
461:
457:
456:
455:
452:
447:
444:
443:
442:
437:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
381:
379:
376:
368:
367:
362:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
341:
337:
333:
332:65.110.26.195
329:
322:
319:
317:
312:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
291:
288:
287:
282:
279:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
262:
258:
255:
254:
249:
244:
239:
235:
227:
223:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
207:
206:
205:
204:
201:
196:
191:
187:
180:
178:
176:
174:
171:
167:
164:
162:
159:
155:
152:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
134:
129:
124:
120:
112:
109:
107:
104:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:
91:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
989:
986:
972:
958:
950:
945:
933:
926:Manufracture
921:
910:sexual slang
905:
889:
877:
856:— Preceding
850:
829:— Preceding
811:
787:
776:
761:
745:
732:
719:
697:
673:
642:— Preceding
636:
635:
623:
609:
589:
563:
559:
546:
542:
516:
476:
445:
426:
392:
366:unverifiable
364:
346:
320:
301:
289:
256:
231:
183:
169:
165:
153:
139:
116:
110:
98:
86:
83:sexual slang
68:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
824:coprophilia
706:Oscar Arias
419:Tenacious D
302:Strong keep
977:Sethimothy
963:Radagast83
862:Radagast83
754:Esquizombi
690:Esquizombi
576:Fourohfour
564:rhetorical
543:rhetorical
451:Esquizombi
409:Esquizombi
385:Fourohfour
294:Esquizombi
158:Piccadilly
938:Sandstein
936:per JzG.
898:you know?
894:Just zis
882:GilliamJF
853:per nom.
820:thesaurus
723:here. --
421:or in an
375:you know?
371:Just zis
278:you know?
274:Just zis
156:per nom.
870:contribs
858:unsigned
843:contribs
831:unsigned
802:Silensor
678:WP:WINAD
656:contribs
644:unsigned
624:FloNight
602:Silensor
572:WP:POINT
568:WP:POINT
539:WP:POINT
522:american
465:WP:MEME?
436:WP:MEME?
340:contribs
328:unsigned
311:WP:MEME?
237:american
189:american
122:american
99:Redirect
71:WP:WINAD
959:Comment
835:Midgley
762:Comment
746:Comment
674:Comment
610:Delete
560:Comment
477:Comment
446:Comment
427:concept
425:. The
393:Comment
166:Comment
140:Comment
87:delete.
953:lives.
934:Delete
890:Delete
878:Delete
851:Delete
812:Delete
788:Delete
684:, and
594:WP:NOT
547:ad hoc
498:WP:IAR
326:—This
290:Delete
226:WP:IAR
154:Delete
77:, and
50:Stifle
951:Their
946:KEEP.
922:KEEP.
908:into
750:WP:RS
720:Keep.
686:WP:OR
637:KEEP.
618:WP:RS
616:and
518:young
233:young
185:young
118:young
79:WP:OR
16:<
866:talk
839:talk
816:good
698:KEEP
682:WP:V
652:talk
614:WP:V
590:Keep
528:talk
401:WP:V
336:talk
321:Keep
257:keep
243:talk
195:talk
170:keep
128:talk
111:Keep
75:WP:V
54:talk
914:bbx
896:Guy
620:.
592:.
373:Guy
342:) .
276:Guy
103:PJM
912:.
868:•
841:•
792:GT
680:,
658:)
654:•
574:.
482:GT
338:•
181:.
144:GT
73:,
56:)
864:(
837:(
650:(
530:)
526:(
467:)
463:(
438:)
434:(
334:(
313:)
309:(
245:)
241:(
197:)
193:(
130:)
126:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.