Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (4th nomination)

Cleveland steamer

This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms cautions against. After a lot of good effort to improve and source the article, we are left with a bare dictionary definition, plus a rather short list of cultural references to the term (some of which don't refer to the term, but to the act only). The article includes references, but all the references are examples of use of the term, rather than about the term (as is specifically required for reliable sources about neologisms in WP:NEO. See my vote for specific criticism of the FCC document, which is the best source). The article was nominated for deletion before, three times, however, each of those nominations had a problem. The first was based on an ill-advised attempt to censor WP. The second (no consensus) was perhaps the best, but several of the keep votes are based on the idea that the article could be expanded and sourced properly, and it's now 3 months later but this hasn't happened; the keeping of the article in the previous round was also a factor. The third AfD was largely decided because of the outcome of the previous two, plus allegations of a bad faith nomination that led to a user conduct RFC. The most recent nomination is now two months ago, so I feel it's time the community can give the issue a fresh look. Mango juice^talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Let me point out that the FCC source is not a reliable one. In it, a "cleveland steamer" is defined by a radio jockey in a transcript that the FCC includes in a document. The FCC document is not about cleveland steamers, but rather, includes the transcript to demonstrate the portion of the show the FCC objected to in fining the radio station for broadcasting it. The article uses this source to back up the definition of a Cleveland steamer.. however, the definition in this source is just given off-the-cuff by a DJ (with apparently very little certainty). Mango juice^talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it is gross, and dubious in ever having actually occured, it is a widely known and used term. If references are needed ... oh God, I don't want to have to look any up ... eww. Nonetheless, it passes WP:NFT with flying colours, and any other standard I could require it to uphold. If you don't buy the citations, that's one thing, but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to dig up ones everyone can agree on. WilyD 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:WINAD and WP:NEO? And how long are we supposed to wait for these sources? I looked hard myself, and couldn't find anything even remotely reliable. Mangojuice^talk 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I would guess that it should pass WP:NEO under the assumption that it's not a neologism - I don't believe it is, anyhow. WP:WINAD may be a better argument, but the pop culture references may save it as stub needing expansion instead. It already has 4 references - while they may not be the highest quality, the do speak against it being a neologism and should get it past WP:V - given the current content. Is Pop culture references enough to make it fail WP:WINAD or Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information? I'm not convinced of either of these things. WilyD 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why does this article keep coming up on AfD?? Stop stuffing beans up my nose! :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; whilst I do not wish to vote either way on the issue at present, this is the fourth AfD in just over 7 months. The last was two months ago, and was for "keep". Have things changed significantly since then? If not, I don't believe this AfD is justified. This is verging on abuse of process. Fourohfour 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator (or transwiki to Wiktionary). From WP:NEO: "To support [an article about] a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." It appears that cleveland steamer is exactly such a term: there is demonstrable use of the term, but it has not yet been the subject of any writing that Wikipedia can actually use as a source. Therefore, the subject is necessarily original research and can't have an article written that conforms to policy yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps speedily under criteria #5. This is an absurd nomination, sources exist and it's not an issue anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources aren't enough to pass WP:NEO though. They have to be secondary. We don't seem to have any. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears these do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I must have missed the ones in question, then. Which sources are secondary? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be gross but it's definitely real. BoojiBoy 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is think its a notable enough phrase. People might come looking for it. --Pboyd04 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that any of the sources constitute a reliable source on this subject. Given that it seems to be such a controversial subject, is there a larger article that it could be merged to? Incidentally, I don't believe that this is a bad-faith nom, given the spotted history of the AfDs above. Ziggurat 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate merge target is probably coprophilia. Mango juice^talk 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - would this be an acceptable compromise? When you strip away the unverified information there's really not enough for a full article on this subject. Ziggurat 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, tried that. There was no consensus for a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no consensus that just means we have to try harder to find one :) If I may ask, what was the reasoning against it last time it was suggested? Ziggurat 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the subject is notable enough as is, and deserving of an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Somethings are just too good that they must be mentioned. Frankly I am suprised that the Roscoe or the Avenger do not have articles. The Cleveland steamer is a North American Universal expression. The Steamer has one name throughout U.S.A., unlike other expressions. This act is as important as Tea-Bagging. Pete Peters 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Instead of deleting the article, why don't you just expand it.--Glaze 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination notes that expansion was argued in past deletion debates, but hasn't happened for lack of material. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Why delete I rather get the definition here than some other stupid site, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: user's only edit. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. You want urbandictionary. Down the hall, third door marked "WC". -- GWO
- Comment Cleveland Steamer is not really slang. I checked my desktop dictionary and it doesn't contain blowjob but that's not really slang either. The current entry may be small in its encyclopaedic content (i.e. just appearences in pop culture) but it's not a straight dicdef. Plus, Urban dictionary is basically just for things that are made up, not for real, ordinary, widely used terms like Cleveland Steamer. WilyD 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]