Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) (5th nomination)


 * 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   keep. sufficient consensus - nearly unanimous - that it is well-referenced and not just a dicdef JForget  15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Sexual practice which in itself has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The word for it has, but per WP:NOTDIC articles on phrases/words are inappropriate here. Claritas § 10:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * keep per umpteen previous noms. Eliteimp (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't really see what's changed since the last nomination. The article seems to be well enough referenced. And it's more than a dictionary definition, as it explains the idea in terms of popular culture. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. DRosin (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. After four failed attempts, I cannot see this AfD as anything but disruptive. I can't see how anyone, in good faith, could suggest a well-referenced, 400 word article is just a dictionary definition. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a disruptive nomination. I personally had concerns with the article, and I wished to clarify the consensus of the previous discussion. I'd prefer some demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than a questioning of my motives. Assume good faith please. Claritas § 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you would like to "clarify the consensus of the previous discussion", and want more "demonstration of significant coverage in reliable sources". Alas, I and the other three participants in this doomed AfD have already spent more time on it than it justifies. If you have a problem with the way the previous AfD was closed, you can take it to WP:DRV, and if you disagree with our standards for notability, you can discuss those on the relevant policy talk page. Nominations such as this serve no useful purpose, and waste people's time. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith please. If you're in favour of keeping, provide significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 16:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dan Savage, the FCC and South Park, among probably hundreds of others, are all appropriate, high profile sources for this article, and the article as stands goes well beyond a dictionary definition.Minnowtaur (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dan Savage, the FCC and South Park" hardly meet WP:RS. Claritas § 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per all of the above. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : The article as 13 sources, which clearly invalidates the nom rationale. To say that "the word for it has" but the practice has not appears nonsensical. And yes, renominating for the fifth time is disruptive, in my opinion, unless policies have changed significantly in the meantime, since it is akin to forum shopping. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Dictionary definition of a fictional sex act. Edison (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (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.