Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad grimple


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlsbad grimple
Fails WP:V and WP:NEO. Doesn't appear to be in widespread currency - 129 Google results, and only 12 unique results (none of them from a reliable source). makomk 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only reference is to a joke news show and Urban dictionary, and shame on Urban dictionary for allowing this. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. If there are pages on the dirty sanchez, the Cleveland steamer, the donkey punch, the rusty trombone, etc., then this equally stupid article should be kept.  I also think it should be kept so that I'll have more ammunition when I begin my letter writing campaign to school superindendents advising them to ban Wikipedia in schools and even ban any citing of Wikipedia in school papers.  Please don't ruin my fun.  Billy Blythe 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - widespread usage not established. JASpencer 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard of it, even in London, so not just U.S. usage.--Poetlister 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As somewhat of a newbie, I judge articles based not on what I think at all, and only according to (rather strict reading of) WP guidelines. Let me also preface the rest of this by saying I am far from a prude, and widely circulated many of the above listed phrases amongst friends back in the day, and in an attempt to see what human are capable of I have a library of some rather gross and disgusting images and videos which frankly don't disgust me anymore. So, coming upon this article I did first what I usually do: read the appropriate guidelines, in this case WP:NEO. To judge a neologism on whether you've heard of it seems to suggest you haven't read WP:NEO lately. What are these guidleines for if arguments are made which ignore them? In spite on what I've read on the other sexual neologism debates, I think they, too, still fail WP:NEO miserably, and suggest another debate on the merits of them at all. Guyanakoolaid 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but remember the steamer. Remember the Dirty Sanchez.  Read the AfD's for those.  The Cleveland steamer was even taken to DRV by an admin after it was kept, an unprecedented move at the time, as DRV was at that time only for appeals on deleted articles.  No one seems to want to hear debate on this type of article anymore.  It's apparently been discussed to death.  The only solution I can see is to keep things like the Carlsbad grimple to set a low bar for inclusion for sex moves.  Then, every silly sex move from Urban Dictionary will be copied over into Wikipedia and someone higher up than I will be compelled to do something about it in the form of a policy.  Poetlister's vote is valid as it is clearly based on WP:IAR, an old policy.  People love the Grimple, man, so don't fight it. Billy Blythe 23:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I really didn't want to, but keep. It's a well-known term, well-known enough to make The Daily Show.  Sigh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.