927:
r4eferences of the term. You yourself stated "It's sourced." After back and fourth communication, your argument changed to it "not being a proper encyclopedia topic." The number of sources seems to state otherwise. I spent 10 minutes online on the term and pulled five seperate sources. There is still mroe that can be added. For example, the source of the phrase, or a "how to" discussing the use of human toilet furniture. The article has been expanded well beyond a simple definition. Again, the proper thing to do would be tag for cleanup and actually clean the article up. It isn't tough. Just use your brain and think of ways to make the article better. How about a discussion of the begative cultural view of the practice? From my perspective, and this topic does not really interest me (I only noticed it because of the numerous nominations for deletion--all of which make the same or similar arguments) the AFD tag is improper.
1382:, he obviously believes it should. I disagree. The way I see it, this term, whether written about at length or not, has made it into popular culture and the fact that it has made it into popular culture is verified by the last two references on the list, while the definition is verified by 2, 3 and 4 (which looks like a solid reliable source to me), makes it worthy of inclusion. It is verifiable. Therefore, it should not be a red link, and should definitely not be a salted red link. Notability is not synonymous with verifiability, and the reason verifiability is a policy whereas notability is simply a guideline is because notability is subjective, and can lead to losing verifiable information.
467:, which was a very long list of these sorts of things. Now, the article was entirely unsourced, most of the content was unnecessary, and it was very poorly written, so I, along with everyone else, voted for it's deletion. Now, I see that there are a number of articles now, Cleveland steamer being one of them, that is not exclusively an obscure piece of vulgarity. It has enough context within popular culture to be considered notable, but not enough to warrant it's own article. Could we perhaps revive this list in some way, shape or form, but including only the small handful of notable topics that meet this criteria?
1345:. This is taking notability way, way too far. I support notability to the extent that it keeps us from being obliged to tolerate one biographical article per person/band/group who has ever existed, and one website article per site on the internet. This would make Knowledge unmaintainable. However, if we start nit picking every article out there and trying as hard as we can to judge the sourcing as "non-trivial" to get them deleted, we will lose a lot of verifiable information. I would be strongly opposed to this article being outright deleted, if you must get rid of the article, merge and redirect it to
883:"I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a
1327:"Knowledge may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Knowledge can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Knowledge cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific religious or social tasteful to all users or adhere to specific norms or requirements...
806:
unless some are added it will be deleted. Three citation, with one being from a bad cartoon known to make up details for the sake of comedy do not class as proof of notability. Perhaps if you can add 5 reputable sources with some details that are not trivial this article will be deserving of an article. As it stands you are assuming people's reasoning and entirely wrong about it's deserving to stay. --
48:. The nominator sounded like he/she was combing the list of Knowledge policies and guidelines just to find a deletion rationale, and even commented that his/her rationale is now weaker per cleanup near the end of the debate. Also, some "delete" arguments were based on that the subject was disgusting, which is true (unless you have the fetish or something). However,
818:
wasn't. And don't tell me I am wrong about an opinion. You have a different opinion than me. Fine. I can live with that. There is no right or wrong. However, the fact remains, there is evidence to show this was a bad faith nomination, and that even the nominator admits there are sources; which means it meets notability requirements. Nothing more is needed.
1538:
216:
than trivial but less than exclusive. Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill
Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial.
796:
about health concerns? Something dealing with its actual level of popularity? Etc. But hey, lets ignore these things because it is disgusting. Again, from the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nom. The nominators rational has already changed once and admitted his original basis--a lack of sourcing--was innaccurate.
892:. The fact the act has been discussed in numerous pop-culture references makes it notable--unlike other non-notable sex acts. Without its pop culture basis, it wouldn't be notable. You keep claiming it is trivial, however, in this case, the pop-cultrual references are a basis for its notability. Its not trivial.
1266:
In my opinion the vast number of listed popular-culture references this act has received in recent times makes it notable - while the article could use some cleaning up, I definitely believe this to be a notable concept deserving of an article. I agree with CaveatLector that this AfD really smacks of
939:
All your "expansion" has done is cause the page to become full of even more trivia. Please note it does not matter if the nomination is slightly off as long as the point that this can not become an encyclopedia article is made. The fact is that you have tried to expand it and all that has happened is
795:
admitted it is sourced (contrary to what was originally stated). Now the argument is its unencyclopdiac. You argue it is not expandable beyond a definition, but ignore the fact it already has expanded beyond a simple definition--it is a pop-culture issue. I can think of other things to add to it. How
777:
I believe it is you who misunderstands. This article is not encylopedic. It doesn't matter if you list a million sources and everyone in the world decides it is a fun and not disguisting thing todo, because it remains a definition that is in no way expandable. Also, the comment above your own doubted
1389:
article, this I don't particularly care about, so long as we don't lose verifiable information which might be searched for. As for this nomination being nitpickery, yes, IMO it does seem to have been done in prejudice against the article, for the same reasons CaveatLector gave. Also, we've been here
926:
You are really stretching. There are four sources that cite the term and discuss it. All from third parties. There is a book about Adolf Hitler that discusses him practicing the act. There is an article that discusses the health risks involved. There are several articles that discuss the pop-culture
642:
was equally bad. The article does not contain a trivia list. From what I see, this seems to be a deletion based more or less on the limited use of the term. This is an invalid rational. However, given the history of numerous nominations. It will only be a little while before this is nominated again.
215:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more
957:
does not prohibit trivia, as long as it is incorporated into the article and serves a purpose. As stated by numerous other posters--particularly during the last seven nominations, is that the pop-culture references are part of its notability. Furthermore, you also argued it could not be expanded. I
805:
I dont't care about notability, as i said, there is no way you could expand it. It is not wide enough for verifiable studies into health to have been done and it definetly does nto need more trivia about popularity. On the note of notability though, i don't not see numerous verifiable citations, so
563:
If one wishes to delete an article, one can propose it however many times until one day the balance of people at AfD should by normal variation happen to be towards delete, and then it cannot be reinstated without
Deletion Review. It is necessary to win only one time in eight (or ten or twenty). If
298:
I definetly would not have voted delete in any previous AfD's, but after looking through the history and checking numerous sources, i see no way of making this article long enough to make it worthy of wikipedia. It is simply a dictionary definition and i would also seriously consider the term far
1612:
I retracted my Delete vote, but I can't quite see myself changing all the way to a keep. I have no doubt whatsoever that this term is notable, and should be included in
Wiktionary. I still have reservations about whether it deserves it's own article. It's because this is a term rather than an
851:
doesn't even mention the term "Cleveland steamer"). I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's
817:
You don't care about notability? That is the basis proferred for its deletion. As for not being able to expand it further, I can think of more, how about a section about where the term came from? As for a claim I am assuming peopel's reasoning, he said it was sourced after originally saying it
958:
expanded it. I added several sources. I found alternative definitions, noted its effect on a famous leader, and found health risks which you argued could not be found because it was a minor act. It appears as if there is more out there than people are willing to admit. Again, AFD is improper.
633:
seems to be an irrational argument. The article cites sources that discuss the topic. The sources are from a third party. One is even an FCC notice of liability discussing the topic. If you want, I am sure there is a porn site or two that can be used as sources but that seems to be a bit
1253:
Absolutely disgusting, but still needs an entry. Also, I think that the fact that this has surviced 8 times and that the nominator openly admits to
Wikilawyering this nomination ("i've finally nailed it", i can loophole my way into getting this article deleted now!) screams bad faith.
767:
With this evidence, it appears this may be a bad faith nomination. Also, to respond above, the fact it is disgusting does not inherently give it notability. The fact it has become a pop-culture reference because of its disgustingness does give it notability. Can't you see the
231:. Ultimately, Knowledge is not a dictionary, and when the triviality of the references to this term are stripped away, it does not merit a stand-alone article. Strip away the original research and you have a permastub. It deserves a place in Wiktionary and a mention in the
685:
per CraigMonroe. The issue here is definitely its status as a pop-culture item, and its general disgustingness; there are a lot of articles dealing with unpleasant things that just keep getting nominated for deletion over and over until deletion wins out (remember
1349:
as suggested above, but don't delete verifiable information. Also, I would advise people to restrain from screaming "it's wrong / it's disgusting" in their delete rationales, as this may suggest that such !votes have been influenced by simple narrow-mindedness. -
336:. Knowledge is not a directory of (definitions of and references in pop culture to) slang, vulgar definitions of highly uncommon extreme sex acts which are known more as apocryphal jokes than as things that people actually do. Who would truly dispute that per
592:
matter how many AfD nominations there have been previously. If you're basing your arguments on invalid inclusion criteria that do not fit with policies and guidelines, then the closing admin has no reason to accept them when weighing up the debate at the
204:
This has been a tough topic for those who suggested its deletion in the past, but many were in favour of deletion in the previous attempts throughout this article's 18-month-plus history. Anyway, I think I've finally nailed it: this article does not have
218:
The article currently has three references, followed by an unconsolidated collection of unsourced trivial passing mentions of the term. Let's examine the references in detail, in reverse order: 3. The Family Guy reference - undoubtedly trivial. 2. The
564:
one wishes to keep an article, it is necessary that the balance favor keeping all eight times.Tthis is different from all other closure rules in any sphere of activity, except for knife fights, where you also have to defeat every possible opponent.
1504:. I must admit that the article is in a better shape now. I'm not going to withdraw my nomination, but my initial arguments are somewhat weaker as a result of the expansion with encyclopedic content, although the section stubs are lacking.-
887:
by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly." You are starting to understand why the other references don't exit, why this is not "just a dictionary definition," and why it doesn't fail
1267:
wikilawyering - it is written as if the nominator has some kind of personal grudge against this article and searched hard for a believable justification, rather than believing in good faith that it truly is deserving of deletion.
1585:
VanTucky hits the nail on the head. Yes its distasteful, but its a term used quite frequently so the obscure term argument doesnt hold water. Article is well sourced, Fed Govt transcripts use it... its certainly a notable term.
270:
in popular culture" articles are being deleted left and rght). Poorly sourced, to boot. Suggest that closing admin necessarily ignore any and all votes whose rationale is simply the number of times this has been nominated.
1377:
Basically, I see two issues here, one of which I have opinions on and the other I have no opinion on. The first is whether the infomation should be deleted, which seeing as the nominator has brought this to articles for
1364:
So your problem with this article is that the reasoning is correct but in your opinion "nit-picking"? You don't actually make any claim as to how this page is notable or how the sources can be considered non-trivial. --
1491:
20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Retracted my delete vote after further consideration... I still question whether the non-Wiktionary content is valuable, but I am starting to see the argument from the other perspective)
126:
137:
132:
119:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
952:
I disagree. For example, a mention of health risks is anything but "trivia." Not to mention a psychological profile that discussed one of the 20th century's most infamous leaders is not trivia. Furthermore,
265:
trivial, not expandable beyond a dicdef. Article is basically a small collection of times this has been mentioned in popular culture, which is by nature trivial information (there's a reason that all the
87:
1548:
142:
763:
And the truth comes out. You admit it is cited but think to topic is innappropriate yet you still claimed as a basis that the article was not sourced. The basis for deletion is in violation of
1234:
229:
Google Books and found two references that refer to this sexual "act" and not to steamboats, both of which appear to be highly trivial, the latter even having to explain what the term means
852:
exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a
547:
No it hasn't. I could easily add that much trivia to every word in wiktionary. Doesn't mean we should though, if you strip the trivia, there is no real information in the article. --
1475:
It belongs in
Wiktionary. To those who say this article is more than a dictionary definition, I would answer thusly: There are three sections beyond the definition. One is about
994:
Simple, This is a form of human eroticism and should not be judged by the reader on the validity of or opinions of the those offended. Information is king, censorship is wrong.
1084:
I don't believe "WP:NOT a shock site" has been accepted as a policy yet, nor have I ever seen it proposed as one. If it were and stretched to cover this, it would contradict
81:
52:
in regards to these topics. However, the "keep" side is not immune from problems: voting "keep" because this is the article's 8th nomination is not a valid argument.
197:
778:
the
Notability, it did not claim it should be censored, you seem to be taking this way too personally to prove a point that is simply not neceasary to make. --
223:
reference. I can't see this in the preview on amazon.com, so I have no idea whether this is a non-trivial mention or not, and I expect it would be, and
1293:. It is definitely more than a dictionary definition. I see no reason to delete this (and think that an 8th nomination is a waste of people's time).
690:?) If the article's got third party sources, it deserves to stay, and it does. This is a nontrivial act with numerous mentions in current culture.
1512:
880:
864:
751:
725:
668:
601:
503:
442:
389:
348:
323:
251:
361:
for all the reasons given in the previous half a dozen arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations?
170:
165:
1479:, which has its own article so that section is unnecessary. The second is about the health risks, which could be adequately covered under
174:
1010:
1711:
1673:
1660:
1645:
1633:
1600:
1577:
1529:
1517:
1496:
1462:
1396:
1369:
1356:
1333:
1309:
1297:
1271:
1258:
1244:
1224:
1201:
1189:
1180:
1165:
1156:
1136:
1102:
1079:
1058:
1046:
1030:
974:
962:
944:
931:
896:
869:
842:
822:
810:
800:
782:
772:
756:
730:
694:
673:
647:
622:
606:
575:
551:
539:
527:
508:
471:
447:
410:
394:
365:
353:
328:
303:
290:
256:
157:
64:
1417:
687:
638:, the article is already expanded beyond a simple definition. Like it or not, this is a pop-culture issue. Also, the argument using
1556:
422:. If you read my argument in full for this AfD (as with the one for rusty trombone), you'll find that I believe that it violates
227:
about the subject. 1. Partial transcript of the
Deminski & Doyle Show reference is totally trivial as well. I also searched
17:
381:
reasons are you referring to? And no, there are no such rules and it's been a few months since the last nomination anyway.-
1641:
I don't understand this particular line of reasoning. It seems that the first sentence says exactly what the action is.
1128:
Call the argument ignorant if you wish, however, the argument you made is still arguing for censorship in violation of
1567:'s show and you're trying to tell me it's just some obscure term that isn't a notable fixture in culture? And that's
1654:
of an action, rather than
Coprophilia, which is a term to describe a fetish that encompasses many different acts.
1694:
1412:. Boy, was I ever wrong! Anyway, since I'm here ... in addition to receiving news attention through its use in a
1093:
36:
1420:, cleveland steamer has been a topic of radio, television, and music. The real issue is whether there is enough
228:
1693:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1551:. Is it just me, or is there a pattern of nominating well-sourced, notable sex acts for deletion that the user
487:
and other unusual sex acts/made up slang phrases for them could go into the relevant related articles, such as
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1305:. Actually, it satisfies WP:N. The sourcing is good enough. Delete it anyway because it is distasteful. --
656:
To say that "the article does not contain a trivia list" is technically true, because it's in paragraph form.
1385:
The second issue is whether it should have its own article, or whether it should be mentioned briefly in the
1006:
1064:
1289:
which is very short at this point). The article appears to be well sourced. It's gross, but
Knowledge is
161:
1525:
This goes to show the article is expandable, and the proper thing would be tag for clean up and not AFD.
1552:
1506:
1322:
1002:
858:
792:
745:
719:
662:
595:
497:
436:
383:
342:
317:
245:
1547:
This article is sourced even better, and has more varied and encyclopedic content than the nominator's
1132:. But I guess pointing that out just makes me--wait, or did you say the argument--ignorant ... right?
464:
998:
787:
Hate to tell you but if there are verifiable third party sources that discuss it, it is notable. See
210:
1622:
521:
1392:
1352:
1098:
1476:
1076:
1027:
838:
I added four or five sources, and split the article into thre distinct sections. Anything else?
1618:
1594:
1255:
1221:
1043:
691:
619:
536:
520:, totally trivial sex act, impossible to expand beyond dicdef. And lemme add this too... Eww.
492:
235:
article as an apocryphal sexual act, but certainly not its own article which consists of mere
153:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
856:
by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly.-
739:
I don't see, also, why people are so eager to defend this. Just because it's disgusting does
1670:
1526:
1484:
1290:
1198:
1177:
1133:
1129:
1055:
971:
959:
954:
928:
893:
839:
819:
797:
769:
764:
708:
644:
639:
431:
236:
209:(the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote
49:
1366:
1197:
I don't know whether I should laugh or take a bath. Just the thought makes me feel dirty.
1162:
941:
807:
779:
635:
548:
423:
300:
1408:- OK, from the article name, I first thought this article had to do with shipping on the
1441:
1425:
1306:
884:
853:
488:
312:
272:
1152:
isn't it notable now for being a WP article that's been nominated for AFD 8 times...?
1655:
1630:
1572:
1560:
1493:
1488:
1455:
1445:
1429:
1413:
1085:
1039:
1023:
713:
704:
571:
337:
53:
1621:
needs anything beyond a
Wiktionary entry. For comparison, I offer the example that
1587:
1564:
1437:
1421:
1186:
1153:
468:
407:
362:
191:
1614:
1480:
1449:
1433:
1409:
1386:
1346:
1286:
1241:
1217:
889:
788:
717:
article make. It's not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia on these grounds.-
630:
484:
427:
232:
58:
1390:
seven times, find a new way out other than straight deletion. They do exist. -
1642:
1330:
1294:
1268:
848:
1487:. Strip out the unnecessary crap, and it's just a dictionary definition. --
1216:
Why can't there be another option to outright delete? Like merging into the
1089:
1571:
the twelve reliable and significant sources in the article? What a crock.
1708:
743:
make it notable. It's sourced, but it's not a proper encyclopedia topic.-
566:
225:
even if not trivial, it would be the sole example of a non-trivial source
483:. Interesting idea, but I think that this should have a mere mention in
1707:, per VanTucky. People will come to WP to look for info on this topic.
1626:
1022:
This is merely a piece of crude humor being presented for shock value.
1625:
has an article (because it is an action rather than just a term), but
1483:. The remaining one is the pop culture section, which runs afoul of
463:
Knowledge used to have an article (and this was a while back) called
311:
If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers
1038:
The above vote only makes sense to me as an argument in favor of
1687:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
406:
well it's sourced and doesn't seem to violate any WP policies.
970:
How about a discussion of the psychological factors involved?
1650:
Actually, it seems to me that Cleveland Steamer is comprised
1088:
without fail. Would you propose deleting the articles about
495:. Making a list would just be another collection of trivia.-
127:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (second nomination)
138:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (third nomination)
133:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (sixth nomination)
120:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (fifth nomination)
1329:
Being "distasteful" is not sufficient reason to delete.
1176:
He was making a joke. Don't take this all so seriously.
114:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (9th nomination)
109:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (8th nomination)
104:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (5th nomination)
99:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (4th nomination)
94:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (2nd nomination)
187:
183:
179:
535:
Article has already been expanded well beyond dicdef.
88:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (2 nomination)
634:
unreasonable, what is used seems fine to me. As for
143:
Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer 7th attempt
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
847:They're all still trivial mentions of the topic (
1697:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1617:clearly needs an article, but I'm not sure that
1067:. "I can't conceive of this as being other than
660:The first paragraph is a dictionary definition.-
1418:United States Federal Communications Commission
1235:list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions
1075:." Please keep such fallacies to yourself. --
940:that the page has even more trivia on it. --
8:
1416:staff hoax email and being addressed by the
658:The second paragraph is nothing but trivia.
221:Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks
849:http://www.femdomale.com/human-toilet.html
1185:Correct! Cleveland steamers all round!
1233:: This debate has been included in the
82:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer
79:
1436:facts. In this case, there is enough
584:I feel the need to state that AfD is
7:
77:
1669:That seems fairly accurate to me.
24:
688:Gay Nigger Association of America
1559:, the term is even mentioned in
1555:? I mean, come on, Amazon sells
1536:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1728:
1557:Cleveland Steamer t-shirts
1712:02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
1674:02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1661:02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1646:02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1634:21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1601:21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1578:16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1549:other attempt at deletion
1530:02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1518:23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1497:17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1463:20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1397:19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1370:15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1357:12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1334:03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1310:03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1298:22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1272:09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1259:19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1245:16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1225:16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1202:00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1190:18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1181:15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1166:15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1157:13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1137:13:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1103:12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1094:harlequin type ichthyosis
1080:07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1059:12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1047:06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1031:06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
897:13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
552:15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
540:06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
491:being worth a mention in
65:01:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
50:Knowledge is not censored
1690:Please do not modify it.
1563:concerning obscenity on
1291:not censored for content
975:23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
963:23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
945:23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
932:23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
870:23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
843:19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
823:18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
811:18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
801:18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
783:17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
773:13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
757:09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
731:09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
695:01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
674:09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
648:23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
623:21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
607:21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
576:20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
528:20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
509:20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
472:20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
448:19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
411:19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
395:19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
366:19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
354:17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
329:17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
304:16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
291:16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
257:16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1448:of previously written,
1432:of previously written,
1096:for the same reason? -
1065:argument from ignorance
709:trivia section attached
315:to prevent recreation.-
1440:material to develop a
1424:material to develop a
76:AfDs for this article:
705:dictionary definition
54:Consensus can change.
299:from widespread. --
211:Knowledge:Notability
1623:Mammary intercourse
1452:facts. So keep. --
1040:censoring Knowledge
588:a vote and it does
1477:erotic humiliation
1473:Changed to Neutral
1071:; therefore it is
968:Additional Comment
1619:Cleveland steamer
1553:finds distasteful
1247:
1238:
1015:
1001:comment added by
493:anal-oral contact
154:Cleveland steamer
71:Cleveland steamer
1719:
1692:
1658:
1639:Question/comment
1599:
1592:
1575:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1461:
1458:
1395:
1355:
1239:
1229:
1101:
1063:Ah, the joys of
1026:a shock site. --
1014:
995:
885:coatrack article
854:coatrack article
524:
523:Ten Pound Hammer
465:Unusual sex acts
288:
285:
282:
279:
195:
177:
61:
34:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1701:
1695:deletion review
1688:
1656:
1597:
1588:
1573:
1561:FCC transcripts
1541:
1537:
1516:
1513:r e s e a r c h
1456:
1453:
1438:reliable source
1422:reliable source
1391:
1351:
1242:John Vandenberg
1097:
1086:WP:NOT#CENSORED
996:
881:r e s e a r c h
868:
865:r e s e a r c h
755:
752:r e s e a r c h
729:
726:r e s e a r c h
672:
669:r e s e a r c h
605:
602:r e s e a r c h
522:
507:
504:r e s e a r c h
446:
443:r e s e a r c h
393:
390:r e s e a r c h
352:
349:r e s e a r c h
327:
324:r e s e a r c h
286:
283:
280:
277:
255:
252:r e s e a r c h
168:
152:
149:
147:
129:
122:
90:
74:
59:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1725:
1723:
1715:
1714:
1700:
1699:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1664:
1663:
1604:
1603:
1580:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1510:
1499:
1465:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1383:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1323:WP:NOTCENSORED
1313:
1312:
1300:
1283:possibly merge
1276:
1275:
1274:
1248:
1227:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1169:
1168:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
862:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
760:
759:
749:
734:
733:
723:
698:
697:
679:
678:
677:
676:
666:
651:
650:
643:Ce'st la vie.
625:
612:
611:
610:
609:
599:
579:
578:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
514:
513:
512:
511:
501:
489:rusty trombone
475:
474:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
440:
414:
413:
398:
397:
387:
369:
368:
356:
346:
331:
321:
306:
293:
273:Andrew Lenahan
249:
202:
201:
148:
146:
145:
140:
135:
130:
125:
123:
118:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1724:
1713:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1696:
1691:
1685:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1629:does not. --
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1611:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1451:
1447:
1444:and unbiased
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:and unbiased
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:U.S. Congress
1411:
1407:
1404:
1398:
1394:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1321:I Quote from
1320:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:71.200.60.120
1000:
976:
973:
969:
966:
965:
964:
961:
956:
951:
948:
947:
946:
943:
938:
935:
934:
933:
930:
925:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
898:
895:
891:
886:
882:
878:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
867:
866:
861:
860:
855:
850:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
834:
824:
821:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
809:
804:
803:
802:
799:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
775:
774:
771:
766:
762:
761:
758:
754:
753:
748:
747:
742:
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
728:
727:
722:
721:
716:
715:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
696:
693:
689:
684:
681:
680:
675:
671:
670:
665:
664:
659:
655:
654:
653:
652:
649:
646:
641:
637:
632:
629:
626:
624:
621:
617:
614:
613:
608:
604:
603:
598:
597:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
569:
568:
562:
559:
553:
550:
546:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
531:
530:
529:
525:
519:
516:
515:
510:
506:
505:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
459:
458:
449:
445:
444:
439:
438:
433:
430:, as well as
429:
425:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
405:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
391:
386:
385:
380:
377:. Precisely,
376:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
350:
345:
344:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
325:
320:
319:
314:
310:
307:
305:
302:
297:
294:
292:
289:
274:
269:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
253:
248:
247:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
217:
212:
208:
199:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
172:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
150:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
128:
124:
121:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
89:
85:
83:
80:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
62:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1704:
1689:
1686:
1651:
1638:
1609:
1589:
1582:
1568:
1565:Howard Stern
1544:
1522:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1454:
1405:
1379:
1374:
1361:
1342:
1326:
1318:
1302:
1282:
1278:
1263:
1256:CaveatLector
1250:
1230:
1222:Aditya Kabir
1194:
1149:
1125:
1072:
1068:
1051:
1035:
1019:
997:— Preceding
993:
967:
949:
936:
923:
876:
863:
857:
835:
750:
744:
740:
724:
718:
714:encyclopedia
712:
682:
667:
661:
657:
627:
620:Greg Grahame
615:
600:
594:
589:
585:
565:
560:
544:
532:
517:
502:
496:
480:
460:
441:
435:
419:
403:
388:
382:
378:
374:
358:
347:
341:
333:
322:
316:
308:
295:
276:
267:
262:
250:
244:
240:
224:
220:
214:
206:
203:
57:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1671:CraigMonroe
1615:Coprophilia
1527:CraigMonroe
1481:coprophilia
1446:compilation
1430:compilation
1410:Great Lakes
1387:coprophilia
1347:coprophilia
1287:Coprophilia
1218:Coprophilia
1199:CraigMonroe
1178:CraigMonroe
1134:CraigMonroe
1056:CraigMonroe
972:CraigMonroe
960:CraigMonroe
929:CraigMonroe
894:CraigMonroe
840:CraigMonroe
820:CraigMonroe
798:CraigMonroe
770:CraigMonroe
768:difference?
645:CraigMonroe
485:coprophilia
426:as well as
233:coprophilia
207:non-trivial
1450:verifiable
1434:verifiable
1367:Jimmi Hugh
1163:Jimmi Hugh
942:Jimmi Hugh
808:Jimmi Hugh
780:Jimmi Hugh
711:do not an
549:Jimmi Hugh
301:Jimmi Hugh
1613:action.
1485:WP:TRIVIA
1307:SmokeyJoe
1220:article?
1130:WP:censor
1090:goatse.cx
1054:I agree.
955:WP:Trivia
879:To quote
765:WP:CENSOR
640:WP:trivia
618:per nom.
432:WP:TRIVIA
237:WP:TRIVIA
1657:VanTucky
1631:Jaysweet
1574:VanTucky
1494:Jaysweet
1489:Jaysweet
1457:Jreferee
1380:deletion
1044:Chubbles
1011:contribs
999:unsigned
692:Chubbles
636:WP:WINAD
537:Chubbles
424:WP:WINAD
198:View log
1627:Boobjob
1610:Comment
1590:ALKIVAR
1523:Comment
1502:Comment
1442:neutral
1426:neutral
1393:Zeibura
1375:Comment
1362:Comment
1353:Zeibura
1319:Comment
1187:Lugnuts
1154:Lugnuts
1150:Comment
1126:Comment
1099:Zeibura
1052:Comment
1036:Comment
1020:Delete.
950:Comment
937:Comment
924:Comment
877:Comment
836:Comment
707:with a
561:Comment
545:Comment
533:Comment
481:Comment
469:Calgary
461:Comment
420:Comment
408:Lugnuts
404:Comment
375:Comment
363:Lugnuts
334:Comment
313:WP:SALT
309:Comment
171:protect
166:history
1652:solely
1469:Delete
1303:Delete
1161:No --
1024:WP:NOT
616:Delete
518:Delete
338:WP:NOT
296:Delete
263:Delete
241:Delete
175:delete
60:Kurykh
1643:Aleta
1569:after
1507:h i s
1331:Aleta
1295:Aleta
1285:with
1269:Mazca
1195:laugh
859:h i s
793:h i s
746:h i s
720:h i s
663:h i s
596:h i s
593:end.-
498:h i s
437:h i s
384:h i s
379:which
343:h i s
318:h i s
246:h i s
192:views
184:watch
180:links
16:<
1705:Keep
1583:Keep
1545:Keep
1406:Keep
1343:Keep
1279:Keep
1264:Keep
1251:Keep
1231:Note
1007:talk
890:WP:N
789:WP:N
683:Keep
631:WP:N
628:Keep
572:talk
428:WP:N
359:Keep
188:logs
162:talk
158:edit
1709:bbx
1240:--
1237:.
1092:or
1077:FOo
1028:FOo
741:not
590:not
586:not
567:DGG
526:•
284:bli
196:– (
1492:--
1325::
1042:.
1013:)
1009:•
791:.
703:A
574:)
434:.-
340:?-
287:nd
281:ar
278:St
275:-
243:.
239:.
213:,
190:|
186:|
182:|
178:|
173:|
169:|
164:|
160:|
1598:☢
1595:™
1542:Y
1281:(
1073:X
1069:X
1005:(
570:(
268:x
266:"
200:)
194:)
156:(
56:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.