Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer 7th attempt


 * 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 Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC). --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is nothing but a dicdef with a trivia section attached. Classic example of what Wikipedia is not.
 * NOTE: During this AFD discussion, please try to keep the focus on the article itself and not on the number of previous AFD nominations. Remember, GNAA was finally deleted on its 18th nomination and no article has immunity from process due to the number of attempts it has survived in the past. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st nomination Keep 2nd nomination No Consensus 3rd nomination Keep 4th nomination  No Consensus 5th nomination No Consensus 6th nomination Keep Deletion review 21 November 2006 Deletion Review Endorse Keep
 * --Oakshade 06:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; still a dictionary definition. How about transwiking it? This way, it will be Wiktionary's problem ;-) Tizio 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I believe that the number of noms is evidence for deleting, in this particular case: the fact that the article has not been improved after 6 noms is a proof that it cannot in fact be made past its status of dictionary definition. Tizio 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Edison 18:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like it's had enough time, perhaps more than enough some might say. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per every single solitary reason given the first six times. Does not violate any policies or guidelines, meets all relevant inclusion standards.  It'd be great if people stopped trying to force a result seven or eight times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first section of the article consists entirely of a dictionary definition, which violates the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The second section consists of an indiscriminate list of a handful of instances where someone has mentioned the term on TV. Such trivia sections are also recommended against by the WP:MOS. I don't see how you can get a good article by concatentating together two sections that are both against policy or guidelines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first section simply sets up the stub. Poorly written isn't a reason for deletion, especially when it can expanded past a dicdef, which this can.  As for the trivia sections, they should be avoided, yes.  It doesn't mean we can avoid them now, though, not that it requires that they not exist.  So, again, there's no problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has existed for nearly three years. Exactly when is it going to be expanded beyond its current pathetic state? The fact that no substantial improvements have been made in all that time is strong evidence that the article will never be more than the dicdef+trivia stub that it currently is. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe when people stop trying to delete it and start trying to improve it? Moving our reliable sourcing standards past the relative stone age will help, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can also wish for world peace and a pony, too. As for trying to improve it, where have you been for the last three years? Maybe you can make up for lost time using actual reliable sources to say actually meaningful things on the subject over the next few days, show us how it's done. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * where have you been the last three years? It's already obviously meeting all the standards we need, so there's no real problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The number of noms is not evidence for deletion, it is evidence for the persistent efforts of a few eds. against general opposition to keep trying for deletion. Sometimes this is legitimate, for opinion can change. But when carried to this extent I do not think it is legitimate, I think it is knowing  that the balance of people here will vary and that sooner of later chance will favor it. It is the very essence of failed procedure. Systems need closure.
 * I know that in the past it has been considered that any number of repeats are allowable, and I think it is time to change. The relatively newer people here may not feel the same as editors in the past. They may be less tolerant of procedure that degenerates into farce. There are two directions to accomplish the change--one is through changes in the policy pages, and the other  is through changes in the actual decisions here, based not or IAR, but on Common Sense is the Best Rule.  Both are valid methods; both should be pursued. It may take awhile until this repeated nomination is recognized for what it is, abuse of process. GNAA is a precedent to be rejected, not followed. 07:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 April 2007
 * "Has been kept in the past" is not a reason for keeping. If the article violates a policy (in this case, WP:WINAD), a local consensus on AfD should be ignored. As well as 6 or 17 or 100 AfD's. Tizio 09:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is referenced and it's an encyclopedic topic (however crass). And going through so many AfDs that all resulted in the article being kept is an important issue during an AfD, albeit not the primary one. --Oakshade 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Nothing here. And saying that previous AFDs have kept it means nothing except a knee-jerk reaction inside of an actual consideration of the actual issues. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep again, valid topic, relatively sourced, and per WP:DELETE. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep its a valid article, just needs expansion. remember that all articles started off as a single sentence. after all one can define AIDs as a disease and be done with the article, doesnt mean it ought to be deleted.--Greg.loutsenko 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - all information should be freely available, if its is considered simply a dictionary def stub it, because it needs more info, but it does have allot of cultural refs which dictionaries do not.  perhaps they should be described within the article, but it should not be deleted.  The 7th attempt at del perhaps indicates that it is contravertially significant. ZyMOS 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so i edited this unpleasant article so that is would read more as an encyclopedia entry. I hope this will clear up the dictionary problem.  I hope it now can be kept, for anyone who wishes to know about it. ZyMOS 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You changed the format of the article, but it's still a dictionary definition with information about when it has been used. To make it an encyclopedia entry, it needs information about the subject itself. So far, it has information about the term. Tizio 10:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge As per current merge proposal, appropriate to merge with Coprophilia Thewinchester (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Isn't there a limit on the number of times an article can be AFD'ed?Gateman1997 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Take out the trivia, and you're left with a single sentence defining the term.  If an article can't be expanded beyond a single sentence in three years, that sounds like an "unexpandable stub" to me. Shimeru 04:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: The GNAA article was ultimately deleted due to a lack of sufficient third party references. Does this article share that same problem?  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep yet more abuse of the AFD process... lets see if we can get this to 50 nominations and maybe a delete vote YAY... nominator should be blocked for WP:POINT / Disruption.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nomination. Nothing there then, nothing there now. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I can think of many, many ways this could be expanded beyond a stub. Incredibly pervasive within culture. Many stubs seem like dicdefs. The ones that should be deleted are those that are not expandable. I think that most people that nominate this just don't like the subject matter. Voretus 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, no references and it's too short and been like that since a long time. Gman124 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the references in the article can be considered "no references"?--Oakshade 06:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Slang term for some sort of sado-masochistical act which is not particularily widespread. Although some sources are presented which verify that the term is used (I would call the article verifiable), I don't think this kind of slang term is sufficiently notable. (This is just my opinion though, the "keep"s present some valid arguments as well, they just don't convince me.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what you'd consider "widespread" if this doesn't fall into your definition? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the term is in use so often that we could reasonably expect a lay-person to have heard about it. I know that is hand-waving, but my feeling is that this term is very specialized for an activity which has hardly any adherants. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sexcruft. DicDef. Herostratus 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy cr*p - Whatever happens, that's some sick sh** right there, yessiree... However, not nearly as sexy as the Boston bulldozer... (Neutral in case you didn't know) Spawn Man 06:04, 13 April 2007 (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.