378:. 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. —
302:. 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
1063:.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.
514:- 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. --
403:
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
230:
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
573:
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
590:-- 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.
91:
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.
820:
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.
166:
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.
424:
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
830:
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
255:-- 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.
783:
71:
235:
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. —
75:
79:
752:
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.
691:. 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. --
404:
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. —
983:. 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
277:
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.
67:
674:
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? —
212:
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
1081:
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.
575:
106:
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
462:
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.
956:, 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.
497:
334:
Plenty of sources. The popular culture references demontrates more than a dictionary. I'm bothered by so many previous nominations (another
394:
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. --
919:
631:
1053:. Google returns approximately 105,000 matches for the term, so it is likely that people will turn to Knowledge for this information.
606:
354:: 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.
634:, 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.) —
1097:
1085:
1073:
1042:
1008:
994:
974:
960:
934:
891:
879:
867:
851:
842:
825:
808:
774:
756:
745:
731:
711:
695:
681:
669:
641:
621:
582:
565:
553:
539:
530:
518:
504:
482:
466:
454:
436:
411:
398:
385:
366:
342:
326:
306:
293:
281:
272:
259:
243:
225:
207:
187:
171:
147:
126:
114:
96:
52:
535:
Still, most people usually prefer to keep poo in a separate, preferrably remote, place and not spread it all over the dining table.
355:
888:
17:
110:
5th not the second AFD. Finally, there is no notice on the article about the article about the AFD. It needs to be added. --
450:. As it stands, it really hasn't/probably can't expand much beyond a dicdef. Would be better suited for that article.
286:
I'd strongly suspect just unaware of the previous nominations, given the brokenness of the nomination at first. —
1112:
527:
36:
987:
be expanded? (I tried to, so I've already decided for myself what the answer to that rhetorical question is.) —
875:, verifiable info about a sexual slang term. I would prefer keep over merge, to let the article grow over time.
1111:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
900:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1004:
970:
915:
221:
143:
602:
1038:
803:
1000:
966:
911:
526:. Poo-related articles come in handy for learning about health effects from fecally-based activities. --
217:
139:
598:
562:
1034:
179:
Would
Knowledge really be worse off without this stupid article? Furthermore, is it necessary to have
111:
1030:
907:
594:
479:
1082:
991:
980:
839:
728:
678:
638:
493:
433:
408:
382:
290:
240:
200:
184:
123:
791:
395:
339:
708:
138:. Five AfDs, plenty of verifiable mentions, this isn't going to (and shouldn't) go anywhere. --
663:
58:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1093:. This isn't a helpful discussion anymore. 3 was enough, 4 was bad and this is just silly. --
943:
832:
550:
536:
988:
931:
864:
836:
725:
675:
635:
430:
405:
379:
335:
287:
278:
256:
237:
120:
49:
942:
this article provides a synopsis of a wonderful and multifaceted piece of
Americana.--
162:. Badlydrawnjeff is probably right that we'll just get another "no consensus", but it
848:
822:
753:
742:
717:
501:
451:
299:
204:
93:
817:
656:
630:
under debate is whether it can be more than a dictionary definition with a list of
618:
463:
1094:
1070:
787:
771:
767:
652:
475:
447:
323:
303:
269:
268:
What's the evidence for "bordering on a bad faith nomination"? I don't see any.
158:
790:
over a delete, however, if consensus tends towards getting rid of the article.
957:
579:
363:
196:
168:
203:
on this. It's a dicdef, with loads of citations, but still just a dicdef.
692:
515:
876:
322:
Dicdef. Popular culture references are of negligible encyclopedic value
626:
Whether it's notable isn't being questioned—it's clearly notable. What
617:
please it is notable term we do not need to keep renominating this one
183:
slang term in
Knowledge? Perhaps this might be better at Wiktionary.
741:. Just because it's disgusting doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic.--
704:
1105:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
930:
per the above. How many times do we have to discuss this? --
1069:. Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary, what more do people want? --
231:
mere examples of usage.) Essentially, the fact that this
1054:
721:
492:
to wiktionary. Numerous mentions ranging from 2001 (
979:
People predict the future all the time, it's called
576:
Manual of Style: Avoid trivia sections in articles
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1115:). No further edits should be made to this page.
703:. To warn users about the health effects of
8:
999:I'll answer it for you - it's the former. --
786:on this article. I'd prefer a merge into
887:. JMFC, 5th nomination? Come on people.
478:, as per GassyGuy. Otherwise delete. --
320:Delete/ possible redirect as per Aaron
155:, with secondary !vote/suggestion to
7:
429:to Wiktionary per Interiot below. —
24:
965:So you can predict the future? --
66:Previously nominated four times:
216:be expanded with some sanity. --
770:per Aaron and BrownHairedGirl.
496:) to 2006 means it meets their
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
651:well referenced, so it passes
1:
655:, thats good enough for me.
561:I found it a useful article.
1098:12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1086:17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1074:11:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1009:03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
995:02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
975:00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
961:00:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
935:15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
903:10:58, 29 October 2006(UTC)
892:10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
880:02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
868:02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
852:01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
843:01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
826:00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
809:12:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
775:20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
757:03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
746:22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
732:21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
712:21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
696:18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
682:19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
670:03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
642:02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
622:01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
583:19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
566:19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
554:17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
549:slang dicdef, nothing more.
540:17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
531:17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
519:16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
505:04:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
483:04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
467:03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
455:03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
437:04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
412:04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
399:03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
386:02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
367:17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
343:02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
327:01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
307:03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
294:02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
282:01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
273:01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
260:00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
244:02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
226:00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
208:00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
188:23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
172:23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
148:22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
127:22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
115:20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
97:19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
53:00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
901:Someone who found it useful
1132:
889:Encyclopaedia Editing Dude
863:this unexpandable dicdef
358:has been up for deletion
1108:Please do not modify it.
782:per my reasoning in the
338:afd award contender). --
32:Please do not modify it.
1057:03:36, 1 November 2006
847:LOL, you're welcome!
528:Clarenceville Trojan
498:attestation criteria
981:inductive reasoning
954:one-sentence dicdef
494:Mr. Saturday Knight
201:User:Johnbrownsbody
1091:Strong Speedy Keep
885:Strong Speedy Keep
1047:
1033:comment added by
1007:
973:
924:
910:comment added by
807:
611:
597:comment added by
224:
146:
59:Cleveland steamer
1123:
1110:
1046:
1027:
1003:
969:
923:
904:
801:
799:
795:
668:
661:
610:
591:
220:
142:
34:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1113:deletion review
1106:
1028:
905:
816:, and possibly
797:
793:
666:
657:
592:
480:BrownHairedGirl
360:seventeen times
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1129:
1127:
1118:
1117:
1101:
1100:
1088:
1083:SchmuckyTheCat
1076:
1064:
1058:
1048:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1001:badlydrawnjeff
967:badlydrawnjeff
947:
946:
937:
925:
912:71.196.129.136
894:
882:
870:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
811:
777:
760:
759:
749:
748:
736:
735:
734:
698:
686:
685:
684:
646:
645:
644:
612:
585:
568:
556:
544:
543:
542:
521:
508:
507:
487:
486:
485:
457:
441:
440:
439:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
389:
388:
372:
371:
370:
369:
346:
345:
336:Harold Stassen
329:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
296:
263:
262:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
218:badlydrawnjeff
190:
185:Johnbrownsbody
174:
150:
140:badlydrawnjeff
132:
131:
130:
129:
100:
99:
85:
84:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1128:
1116:
1114:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
993:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
959:
955:
951:
950:
949:
948:
945:
941:
938:
936:
933:
929:
926:
921:
917:
913:
909:
902:
898:
895:
893:
890:
886:
883:
881:
878:
874:
871:
869:
866:
862:
859:
853:
850:
846:
845:
844:
841:
838:
834:
829:
828:
827:
824:
819:
815:
812:
810:
805:
800:
796:
789:
785:
781:
778:
776:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
758:
755:
751:
750:
747:
744:
740:
737:
733:
730:
727:
723:
719:
715:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
699:
697:
694:
690:
687:
683:
680:
677:
673:
672:
671:
665:
662:
660:
654:
650:
647:
643:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
613:
608:
604:
600:
599:68.161.100.78
596:
589:
586:
584:
581:
577:
572:
569:
567:
564:
563:194.97.160.92
560:
557:
555:
552:
548:
545:
541:
538:
534:
533:
532:
529:
525:
522:
520:
517:
513:
510:
509:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
484:
481:
477:
473:
470:
469:
468:
465:
461:
458:
456:
453:
449:
445:
442:
438:
435:
432:
428:
423:
422:
421:
420:
413:
410:
407:
402:
401:
400:
397:
396:Marriedtofilm
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
381:
377:
376:Strong delete
374:
373:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
341:
340:Marriedtofilm
337:
333:
330:
328:
325:
321:
318:
317:
308:
305:
301:
297:
295:
292:
289:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
258:
254:
251:
245:
242:
239:
234:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
178:
177:Strong Delete
175:
173:
170:
165:
161:
160:
154:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
133:
128:
125:
122:
118:
117:
116:
113:
109:
105:
102:
101:
98:
95:
90:
87:
86:
83:
81:
77:
73:
69:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1107:
1104:
1090:
1078:
1066:
1060:
1050:
1035:24.22.97.165
1029:— Preceding
1023:
984:
953:
939:
927:
906:— Preceding
896:
884:
872:
860:
818:donkey punch
813:
792:
779:
766:or merge to
763:
738:
700:
688:
658:
648:
632:attestations
627:
614:
593:— Preceding
587:
570:
558:
546:
523:
511:
489:
471:
459:
443:
426:
375:
359:
351:
331:
319:
252:
232:
213:
192:
180:
176:
163:
157:redirect to
156:
152:
135:
107:
103:
88:
65:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1055:Yamaguchi先生
952:No, it's a
944:MattDawg579
835:in mind. —
788:coprophilia
768:Coprophilia
716:User is an
588:Strong Keep
476:coprophilia
448:coprophilia
159:Coprophilia
112:70.48.110.3
940:do not del
932:Myles Long
873:Keep/Merge
865:➥the Epopt
551:Mukadderat
537:Mukadderat
197:User:Aaron
94:mikkanarxi
989:Saxifrage
837:Saxifrage
726:Saxifrage
676:Saxifrage
636:Saxifrage
490:Transwiki
431:Saxifrage
427:transwiki
406:Saxifrage
380:Saxifrage
332:Weak Keep
288:Saxifrage
279:Haikupoet
257:Haikupoet
238:Saxifrage
195:I'm with
121:Saxifrage
119:Fixed. —
50:RFerreira
1043:contribs
1031:unsigned
920:contribs
908:unsigned
899:.Please
849:Silensor
833:WP:CIVIL
823:Silensor
804:ahoy hoy
798:american
754:GassyGuy
743:Folksong
607:contribs
595:unsigned
502:Interiot
452:GassyGuy
205:Emeraude
784:2nd AfD
659:ALKIVAR
619:Yuckfoo
464:eaolson
352:Comment
104:Comment
1095:Apyule
1071:Improv
1067:Delete
861:Delete
772:Edison
764:Delete
722:vandal
571:Delete
547:Delete
512:Delete
324:Bwithh
304:Bwithh
300:WP:CCC
270:Bwithh
193:Delete
153:Delete
985:can't
958:ergot
794:young
709:UPN50
705:feces
580:ergot
500:. --
472:Merge
460:Merge
444:Merge
364:Aaron
233:could
214:could
181:every
169:Aaron
16:<
1079:Keep
1061:Keep
1051:Keep
1039:talk
1024:Keep
1005:talk
971:talk
928:Keep
916:talk
897:Keep
814:Keep
780:Keep
739:Keep
724:. —
720:and
707:. --
701:Keep
693:JJay
689:Keep
653:WP:V
649:Keep
615:keep
603:talk
578:).
559:Keep
524:Keep
516:Whpq
362:. --
356:GNAA
298:See
253:Keep
222:talk
199:and
144:talk
136:Keep
877:bbx
718:SPA
474:to
446:to
108:4th
89:del
80:4th
76:3rd
72:2nd
68:1st
48:.
1045:)
1041:•
1026:.
922:)
918:•
628:is
609:)
605:•
167:--
164:is
92:`'
78:,
74:,
70:,
1037:(
992:✎
914:(
840:✎
806:)
802:(
729:✎
679:✎
667:☢
664:™
639:✎
601:(
574:(
434:✎
409:✎
383:✎
291:✎
241:✎
124:✎
82:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.