Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty trombone (3rd 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rusty trombone
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Following my nomination against Cleveland steamer, I thought it'd be time to tackle this one as well. Essentially, most of the same arguments that I put forward in that AfD apply here as well. The article is essentially a dictionary definition ("performing analingus and a handjob on a man simultaneously" is all that it is once you strip away the original research) with an attached set of trivial references in culture. This article does not have non-trivial (the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote Wikipedia:Notability, '''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 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.''' All of the references here are merely trivial, passing mentions of the term. See the guidelines for articles about 'in popular culture' articles, which is all that this is with a dicdef (which can be explained in less than ten words) attached. To anyone who is thinking about keeping this article, consider also whether a deletion review of "over the hill" (Wiktionary definition) would be appropriate, as the term "over the hill" probably appears in mainstream media (i.e the lyrics to the One Foot in the Grave theme song) more than "rusty trombone", yet would still read as a slang dicdef with trivia attached. The sexual act itself is probably extremely uncommon, and certainly does not merit its own article. Belongs in Wiktionary with a short mention in the analingus article, that is, if there are any reliable sources that even define the term. Delete. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers WP:SALT to prevent recreation.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia 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 WP:NOT?-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is no more than a dicdef with citations of trivial instances of usage, but no sources actually discussing the term or its significance. -- Donald Albury 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable per above comments, and possibly redirect to Anal-oral contact. EyeSereneTALK 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given in the previous arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please state precisely which reasons you are using as the basis of your keep argument.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment well this for one: Offensive, but does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Lugnuts 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you read my argument in full for this AfD, you'll find that I believe that it violates WP:WINAD as well as WP:N, as well as WP:TRIVIA.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the other poster apparently disagreed. CraigMonroe 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep the opposition seems to be at least partially based on the personal opinion that it is uncommon. DGG (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unless it can be verified that it is truly common as an act, we have no evidence that it is. Verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * my point is that it does not have to be common; it just has to be shown to exist and have been noticed. DGG (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not really taking into account the full implications of my initial argument.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to state that AfD is not a vote and it does not 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 end.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel the need to take issue with the statement "verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia". Are you honestly saying that if there were enough sources to veryfy that Julian Clary was a rampant heterosexual with 4 wives and 63 children, the truth would be unimportant? Jcuk 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's why we have the reliable sources guideline to keep out mistruths, gossip and factual inaccuracies. Your example doesn't really work as we could add it to his article that "it is claimed that he is heterosexual with wives and children..." if the sources were thought to be reliable and were multiple.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I really so no reason why its even up for AfD. Not a subject I would be interested in, but no "Real" reason why it should be taken out. Callelinea 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument is given right there at the top of this AfD message. Read it in detail. You're not making a valid "keep" argument.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per rational previously stated. The nominator seems to be stretching wikipedia policy. This isn't a topic I would truly be interesting in but it has been mentioned in numerous cited places. Whether the act is common or not is absolutely immaterial. For someone that seems to criticize other peopels arguments, you should be aware of it. Then again, from what has been written. Even if the AFD is turned down, you will simply re-nominate. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These are trivial, passing mentions, as I said. No reliable source appears to have covered the topic in detail and as such is not worthy of a Wikipedia article.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What sources do you want? Porn sites??? If you want something that is reliable, do a quick yahoo search. I got 77,000 hits and numerous photos, and several places with definitions. However, most of these don't seem quite appropriate for use as sources. Whether you like it or not, the topic meets WP:V the issue is finding suitable sources; they are out there. So the proper thing to do would be tag it for a clean-up--not AFD. The article has already improved the last 24 hours. It can still be made better. CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- all of the "references" in the article are trivial. Fails to cite any reliable sources which either assert, or support, notability.  --Haemo 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. The sourcing may need some fixing but it does assert notability. It is a relativelly common cultural reference in numerous stand-up acts, and a few television shows. This is enough to make it notable--note these were all sourced by reliable sources. What more do you want on that issue?CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A dictionary definition with a trivia section attached do not an encyclopedia article make!--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentYou seem to be misunderstanding the WP:Trivia guideline. The intent of the rule was to apply to lists of trivia:
 * "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read."
 * The guideline even goes further, it states if the lists are found, the information should be incorporated in the article's paragraphs:
 * "Don't simply remove such sections; it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion."
 * Note how the guidlines even say removal of such sections is innappropriate. It seems as if you are misunderstanding the rules. Not to mention, attempting to get into a wikipedia policy debate which has been occuring for years on the issue of whether Wikipedia should even contain trivia. As for now, the guidelines explicitly allow it. This is all that matters. Again, part of the notability of this topic is its pop-cultural signifigance. There are sources to back this up. CraigMonroe 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Green check.png|20px]] Keep Though it pains me to point this out, this act is much more notable than the Cleveland steamer and is a definite fixture in pop culture, even if primarily as a joke. The article provides adequate sources for a sex act. The fact that popular mainstream comedies use the term without stopping to explain in detail what it means, speaks more to the notability of the act than a lengthy discussion would. This nomination stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, Wikipedia is not censored. VanTucky  (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is being presented as a censorship issue at WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, so be wary of comments like "WP:NOT you censorer". -Amarkov moo! 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete content and redirect to anilingus; it's simply a variation of that act. --FOo 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Similar to Cleveland Steamer (put up for deletion for the same reasons), this is a verifiable and nontrivial act with significant pop-cultural relevance. Chubbles 07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete for reasons of foo plus wikipedia is not a democracy. If you can't prove it should be on here you can't vote it's continuation. wikipdia does not record all info and none has proved it's relevance. plenty of things are relevant to pop culture but that doesn't prove they need an article or even a reference. take the idea that Bush and Condolezza are sleeping togetherYVNP 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree on all counts (we have shown notability, and expansded the article beyond a definition, not to mention it appears there is not a consensus for deletion), though I agree that a Bush-Condolezza sex article is not needed or allowed under the rule without legitimate sources. However, that is such a bad comparison, I don't know where to start with the differences. How about for one, WP:BIO and WP:BLP applies to the Bush example. CraigMonroe 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per VanTucky.  Sala Skan  17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or transwiki to wiktionary. The nomination of these two articles sort of play into bad faith censorship, in my opinion.  CaveatLectorTalk 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about rusty trombone. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:01, 12 July 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.