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 merge to Coprophilia. Ok, now, before everyone starts in at me and points out that there were relatively few people here voicing to merge this information, allow me a moment to explain. This is the ninth nomination on an article that consistently fails to reach consensus. Clearly this is indicative of a problem that cannot be ignored; were I to take the "easy route" and close this one as no consensus this would only result in the 10th nomination sometime down the road. On a strictly "by the numbers" basis those arguing to delete outnumber those arguing to keep, and while that really isn't consensus it certainly indicates that allowing this to sit in it's current form is not going to please most folks. All the same, there are several well-reasoned voices for keeping this material that cannot be ignored. What we have here is a curious situation where there does exist a consensus that this article is, and likely forever will be, a dictionary definition, while at the same time there exists a consensus that it is notable. What to do? Neither this article nor the one on coprophilia are particularly large or fleshed out, and when the examples thereof are discounted both are mere stubs. When comparing this article to the state it was in a year ago it is largely unchanged except for some formatting and addition/removal of some examples of its use in the media - there is no indication that leaving this article alone will result in subsequent improvement. As there is no argument that a "cleveland steamer" is a subset of "coprophilia", I fail to see how any conclusion other than merging the material is one that will bring this issue to any semblance of a satisfactory conclusion. Shereth 20:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It's been a year since the last Nomination, and as it was No Consensus, i feel it needs to be discussed again. Obviously i considered it for a while before posting this, and decided i did feel there was serious grounds to finally delete the article. Please in responding, consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established in previous Nominations. Unless you have a very strong argument for either of those points, keep away from the topic. However, whether the topic is notable or not, it has no serious content and there is little chance it can be improved. Also, considering it's importance in the context of related topics, i don't see much that could be added, or reason to merge the examples into larger articles. My primary reason, it is a dictionary (length) article, and impossible to make encyclopedic. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Changed to merge to Coprophilia Whilst we are all probably agreed the subject matter is not particularly edifying, it is encyclopedic. Looking at the last AFD general consensus was that this could become an sound article (for example in terms of the derivation of the phrase etc.) So whilst no-one has bothered making substantial improvement to it I still can't see why that justifies deletion. We have many, many articles badly in need of betterment but that doesn't mean we get rid of them - even if substantial time has passed. I understand the nominator assertions that this is little more than a DICDEF but I feel it is sufficently more than such to escape deletion on those grounds. M♠ssing Ace 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that any dictionary definition could easily be expanded with a large Etymology, history of use, and other contentless side points, what is it about this topic you feel could be said to expand it? I tried long and hard to consider an angle on expanding it, and despite other people's previous attempts to justify such, i still see no substantial points that could be made. Any points would be useful to this consideration. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to this later if that's okay. I'm on an employers machine, so I'll wait until I'm home before looking further off of wikipedia regarding this :) - I agree that perhaps it's flippant of me to say "expand don't delete" without offering concrete areas in which it could be expanded - apologies. M♠ssing Ace 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "offering concrete areas in which it could be expanded", why not expand it into those concrete (coprolite?) areas? (When somebody slapped a PROD on Ragnar Axelsson, I disagreed, so I promptly made the article at least twice as good.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted, Hoary, if you'd provide the diff where my suggestion to provide "concrete areas for expansion" did not include me actually expanding the article. Please don't play semantics with my attempt to apologise to the nominator for not giving due weight to his nomination. That's pretty poor. M♠ssing Ace 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll avoid playing semantics and I'm sure your apology was sincere and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The term received news attention through its use in a U.S. Congress staff hoax email -- now is that major or what? It's something that "a young staffer" for some congresswoman wrote. It got news attention! And just what news attention did it get in Foggy Bottom -- an article in the Washington Moonie, perhaps, or even Washington Post? Well, uh, neither, it would seem. (Here's the story: E-mails were flying around Capitol Hill on Wednesday about a dump in Rep. Jane Harman’s (D-Calif.) office. Yes, that kind of dump. / LOG IN / NOT A SUBSCRIBER / 1. Username / 2. Password / 3. /Forget your password? Click here or / Call 202-824-6800 / Subscribe to Print and/or Online /Click Here) And wait, this phrase has been spoken in "popular culture". Most excitingly, one character in Family Guy once asked another if she would like a "Cleveland steamer". Now there's significance for you (earnestly wrung out into six "encyclopedic" sentences). ¶ Though as it happens it's not significance for me. That some teenager used this jocular neologism in lame email that then got written up by a barrel-scraping website, and that the phrase was then uttered on television, seem matters of profound triviality (though yes, the kind of thing I might have chortled over when I was ten years old). Dig a hole for this, throw it in, do a dump on it, and then cover the hole; I mean delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the whole article. Roll Call requires you either have a subscription or work on Capital Hill to view it's stories. The two sentences you've quoted are just the preview. Further, Roll Call is not "barrel-scraping" by any sense. It's a long running commercially successful paper owned by The Economist Group with prominent current and former staffers. Vickser (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, I looked at the site, and it has some worthwhile content. What little I know of this (non-) story, however, suggests that it scrapes the barrel too. I don't work on Capitol Hill and am not going to buy a subscription; if you or anyone else works there or has a subscription, then let's hear what significance is adduced in the rest of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NINTH times' the charm, right? SashaNein (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really doubt it even exist. Either clearly label this as hoax or legend or otherwise delete it. (This is approaching the GNAA record *sigh*.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though i always appreciate a vote in favour of my position, please read my Nomination and previous nominations. This is a reality and not a hoax, and should only be considered for it's encyclopedic content, unless you have some proof this is a fantastic hoax. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But your nomination appears to wobble. You say: consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established beyond usual doubt. [...] it is a dictionary article. This would imply to me that it's about a term whose [whatever] have been established. (Cf fuck, an article about a term.) But instead you seem to be saying that it's an article about an activity that's notable, but about which there's nothing much to say. Of course, any activity involving voluntary emission of body fluids must be actual and notable in WP, because anyone who suggests otherwise will be labeled a prude. Why be fuddy-duddy and demand such evidence for this as articles in academic journals or books? (Me, I say it's a long and uninteresting dictionary entry for an insignificant and jocular term to describe an activity whose significance has not been adduced.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afriad i don't see your point. I wasn't trying to be "fuddy-duddy" by saying avoid talking about notability, but because there have been 8 nominations already discussing that fact in such detail that it is a waste of time. I myself know numerous people with the Tenacious D T-Shirt mentioned previously. The topic is notable, it simply isn't deserving of a full article on Wikipedia. If we begin discussing Notability, significance, or the opinion of it's deserving of an article, the discussion will slip fast and there will be a no consensus close again. Also note, you don't seem to understand what i mean when i say dictionary article. I do not mean it is an article about a term/definition, but that the content is so small and unexpandable that it couldn't possible provide a full article. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, got it. I guess where we differ is that I see no reason to believe that the topic is notable (let alone that this article is worth preservation). There's a great academic industry about sexology and I wonder how it is, if the subject is notable, that a grand total of zero (0) academic articles have so far been fished up from JSTOR to document its notability. Instead, the article depends on such sources as a book cowritten by "Karl Marks", The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks. I'm seriously underwhelmed; but then perhaps I'm fuddy-duddy, because after all academic articles are seldom devoted to individual Pokemon and all those other subjects that make Wikipedia so inimitable and wonderful. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- this does not go beyond a dictionary definition and a list of trivia. There is no real article to bring out of this mess --T-rex 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no mention of Tenacious D, huh? OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After all these nominations it still hasn't been revised enough to warrant keeping. The references list is worthless. It is not now nor is it likely to become encyclopedic, notable, etc.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the nominators statement of consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established beyond usual doubt. He then goes onto say: However, whether the topic is notable or not, it has remained without any serious content for far too long to believe anyone will improve it. So what? - There is no deadline. Notability has already been established, referenced and cleaned up since nomination #1 and nomination #9. I would even push for the irony of it being notable ONLY via the fact it's been up for deletion so many times and survived. Same time, next year? Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion. Why vote keep on the matter, when there are reasons to delete it? Also, notability has nothing todo with it's Number of AFD's, that would not be sufficient. Note to anyone reading the previous quotes, i intend to edit my original nomination to prevent any more people quoting only parts of my statement to backup there small points. Especially considering discussing notability from either angle is a waste of everyone's time. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your quote Why vote keep on the matter, when there are reasons to delete it? is a pretty weak arguement. You could apply that to 95% of the articles on here! Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't an argument, it was a rude, offhand comment aimed directly at you for childishly focusing on Notability like it matters in this case. I've made perfectly valid and strong argument in my opening comments, if you choose to ignore them, that's your choice, but if you are going to comment, comment on them, not unrelated responses. Thankyou. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Childish comment?!. Good luck with your one-man crusade. Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: NINTH nomination? Seriously? The nominator has basically stated that the subject matter passes WP:N. It clearly passes WP:V. This is a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. This nomination should be closed re: WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. — MusicMaker5376 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the other eight nominations. While it does resemble a dicdef somewhat, it is sourced and appears to be notable. Clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (On both of the above) I have no opinion on this article... I couldn't care less about the content, so your magical ability to read inbetween the subtext must be flawed, especially, as if you look closely at the actual words i use, "it is a dictionary (length) article, and impossible to make encyclopedic" (these can be found in my nomination, not just in your imaginations), i have stated the reason i believe the article needs deleting. If you can profer some way in which the article could become more than a dictionary definition, then fair enough, I would love to see an article improved instead of deleted! However (as stated in the written text of my nomination, where i didn't give any opinion on the article), i don't believe (and no one has given possiblities as to where) it can be improved. Notability and Verification are of course not points of discussion, because i cleary accept both in my Nomination! Just as i accept that the word "the" is a word, however, notice it doesn't have a page dedicated completely to it, because there can be no serious content for just it. Also, the number of nominations should not affect your Vote, and saying "Per the other eight nominations" is not useful to the current discussion. If you feel there are any points in previous discussions relating to how this article can be improved or in what way it isn't a DICDEF (Note, once again incase you missed it, i have accept the WP:N and WP:V on this article too many times to count), please post them and help the discussion move along. I apologize if i seem condescending, but i find it incredibly rude when you jump in, claim notability without reading my nomination, blatently ignore the thought i put into AfDing this in order to improve Wikipedia, and accuse me of letting my opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) affect me, when clearly it hasn't. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wholly unencyclopedic, belongs in a list, not its own article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not a prude. I thought the coprophilia article was interesting. That said, it's an impressive testimony to Wikipedia culture that so much support for this junk article ever existed. This is nothing more than a pop dictionary definition with a (very small) trivia list of pop culture examples thrown on top of it, and is quite clearly outside a few policies and guidelines. Even clicking on some of the hyperlinks used to demonstrate notability, I'm not surprised to find that the links are either broken or the sources no longer exist. Does Sit and Spin Magazine, for example, even really exist or is it a gag site? Please don't get me wrong, I love watching Family Guy as much as anyone else from my generation, but using a throw away comment from one of its cartoon characters to demonstrate encyclopedic notability seems a little odd to me. My favorite sentence comes from a previous AfD commentator: "Smear this 'article' with feces and then pull the trigger." Well said. :-) J Readings (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless trivia about a word that is only a slang term for a coprophiliac act. The word could be added to the coprophilia entry but it certainly doesnt deserve an entry of its own. At the moment it is just a definition and some fancruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that over 50,000 people have viewed the article recently one can only assume that our readership are after some information. So to delete an article from an encyclopedia, when our main goal is to give out the sum of all human knowledge (however crap </joke>), seems wrong. The facts of readership seem to indicate the article has interest and warrants expansion if possible - or at the very least a merge to Coprophilia and a redirect accordingly. M♠ssing Ace 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page hits (much less those cited out of context as above) are not a credible or reliable guage of encyclopedic notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed they don't give credibility to an article - but they do demonstrate that our readership is interested. And my understanding is that the readers are are most important thing. So to not have an article, or at least a redirect, serves our readership poorly. Why, by the way, do you believe this is "cited out of context" ? M♠ssing Ace 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 50,000 page hits demonstrates anything about Wikipedia's readership. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it demonstrates a lot about our readership. I believe the article on Anal sex used to be ranked number 2 or 3. What that demonstrates about our readership is another thing however :). FWIW given that people are evidently interested, but there is exceptionaly good points made above, I'd say merge to Coprophilia. M♠ssing Ace 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this isolated, unconfirmed statistic, given out of context and interpreted through your good faith original research, very likely demonstrates more about the Internet than Wikipedia's readership :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen - Did you actualy bother clicking on the link below before you accuse me of OR ? M♠ssing Ace 22:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an accusation at all, I think you're sharing these thoughts in good faith, to help the encyclopedia. I did click on the link earlier and sampled other article stats too (and had fun doing it). I mean that your interpretation of the statistic is original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my own edification and acknowledging that it has absolutely no relevance to this AfD (Gwen Gale is right), which site do we visit in order to learn that 50,000 people have viewed this (or any other specific) article on Wikipedia? I'd be interested in using this tool (provided that it's reliable) for other things. J Readings (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... just the usual one? Sorry I'm confused. Sorry, I see now. this is the answer to all your counting stat worries! M♠ssing Ace 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this tool is great! Thanks so much. I'll be playing with it all night now! :-) That said, Gwen is still right. It has no real relevance to an AfD. J Readings (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - snazy isn't it! M♠ssing Ace 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge. As mentioned above, it's just a dictionary definition and some trivia. Worthless encyclopedia entry - and I'm saying this as a person who is generally an inclusionist. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Well, I'm generally a deletionist, but this is plainly not just a dicdef. That aside, while I could absolutely live without the article, there comes a time when you just have to accept that consensus has been established, over and over and over and over again, and let it go. NINE AfDs???  Ravenswing  23:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Nothing beyond slang dicdef and growing list of usage examples. May be mentioned in coprophilia article, but no merge. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 5th and 6th were keeps, 7th and 8th no consensus. This is the 9th. Is the intention to continue until by chance the balance happens to be different? It will happen eventually,if we let people do it. After all, one delete is enough to kill it, but no number of keeps can keep it from being killed. Not just keep., but keep with a statement that further nominations will be considered abusive. DGG (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside the putative abusiveness of a tenth nomination, any particular reason for keeping the article (beyond the fact that it hasn't been deleted yet)? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the term is notable, the act is not. There is a band by the name now, so even if this article is deleted, it will be back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the topic is not notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. This is not a slang term, because there is no other term for it. People use the term, and its use is controversial. It appears in Google Books, Google News and numerous other places on the internet. It is a rare day that less than 1000 people view the page, and sometimes it spikes to 3000, presumably because somebody uttered it on TV. If it was a non-pornographic term, no one would nominate it for AfD. Since WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, this AfD must be rejected. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's striking to me that the act is notable and the term is not. The term doesn't even have a fixed meaning (see my comment, below); as a synonym for coprophilia it is merely one among many slang and non-slang equivalents (coprophilia, scatology, human toilet, etc.), as a synonym for "shit" (as in the Jane Harman example cited in the article), well, the cup runneth over... As for the act, it is already described in several Wikipedia articles (including those mentioned on this page), it has been the subject of numerous books, journals, papers, etc. in sociology, psychology, cultural studies, and so on. Writings on the practice have often seemed to be the bread and butter of Autonomedia's publications (e.g. Semiotext(e)), RE/Search, et al., to say nothing of the published outpourings of various Queer cultures... Pinkville (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in case you missed the other million times i've said it, i would have nominated this for deletion if it was about Bunny Rabbits being cuddled, and bunny rabbits were my favourite thing in the world (They're definetly high on the list). I didn't Nominate because of the term, I nominated because it's two lines which haven't been expanded on, couldn't be expanded on and no one here (despite me asking) has provided possible topics of expansion. Please stop assuming you know why i Nominated it, and don't consider the other nominations beyond the speciifc arguments that apply to the current discussion. Thankyou. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I was just about to add to it, specifically that there is another definition. Sourced. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well i've now waited on you posting these sources for 17 hours. I know that's not a very long time, but in terms of preventing a mistaken deletion, it seems fair. If you have ther sources please do add them, or post here a link to proof that more can be said about this than a series of dictionary definition. If you do so, i will happily withdraw my nomination, and i'm sure everyone else who believes it should be deleted purely for its lack of possible content will not wish to continue. However, if there isn't a secret source of content for this article that no one else knows about, try not to get my hopes up, i really don't like deleting things that other people don't wish to have deleted, even if they will lie to keep it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unfortunately. While reprehensible, it is a notable sexual act and there are ample sources available to demonstrate that. I'm surprised the article is so brief in length, but this appears to be due in part to a long term edit war of sorts. JBsupreme (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it's because there is nothing else to add... hence the reason for the AfD, no one questions it's notability, please read nominations before commenting. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect to coprophilia. Unless it can be expanded (say with something on the etymology) it's going to remain as a dictionary definition with some attendant trivia. The term is clearly notable, but this really belongs on Wiktionary. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm only called Pinkville after I've had a good bath, but even I think the focus of this article is far too narrow to be viable. Cleveland steamer is a mere synonym among many for this Dionysian activity, and the term hasn't left a sufficient trail through history to warrant its own article; if we were to keep it (for the 9th time, are you sure?) we might as well add the full contents of every lexicon we come upon (this source, for example, will provide such articles as Duckbutter, Calf-slobber, and Assjack, even while we already have Smegma, Beer head, and Pillow). In other words, it ain't notable, it ain't singular, and there's nothing noteworthy to be said about it that hasn't already been said in coprophilia, scatology, toilet humour, and (presumably) other articles. Pinkville (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to coprophilia. Seems like a redundant article of coprophilia with a bit more information. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notice that the example of the Jane Harman email suggests a definition of "Cleveland Steamer" merely as "shit" (plopped a Hot Cleveland Steamer on our carpet), without any suggestion of coprophila. The definition of the term is probably not even stable enough for a dictionary, nevermind an encyclopedia entry. Pinkville (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not only has there been enough reliable sources that have written enough about his topic to create a neutral article which now has one of the highest citations-per-text ratios I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but it has also been scrutinized by the Federal Communications Commission as to its obscenity on the Deminski & Doyle Show .[1] --Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And anyone could come up with a million times as many reliable sources, controversies, etc. for the word "crap", but the Wikipedia article is shit (plus feces for the more strictly scientific meanings). Sure, Cleveland steamer can be found in a number of different sources, but the general term used to describe the practice - the subject that is encyclopedic - is coprophilia. Cleveland steamer is just one among many slang terms for this practice, and many of those could be found in reliable sources, too; I hope you don't think we should have articles for all those equivalent terms as well. Furthermore, Cleveland steamer doesn't even seem to have a fixed meaning, judging by the Jane Harman example cited in the article, in which the definition suggested is merely "shit", not coprophila. I can see the Cleveland steamer (disambiguation) page already... Pinkville (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per all the sources in the article, Oakshade's FCC citation, and out of respect for all the editors who have weighed in a previous eight times. There's clearly not a consensus to delete it, this is to me becoming too much WP: IDONTLIKEIT Vickser (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If another User Accuses me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without reading my nomination, any of the other comments about deletion, my responses to this very accusation or realise that this discussion is about a completely different point to the others (which shouldn't be a consideration anyway), i promise to turn from rude and slightly too abrasive to nasty, and if it means i get blocked, thank god i don't have to continue to read idiotic comments like this. Fair enough, make your point! Even say keep and i will be perfectly civil in response (as i was to Missing Ace who wasn't simply trying to get their comment in without reading my nomination), but at least be on topic and helpful to the process. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that a number of comments seem to have missed the point of the nomination, which as I read it is that Jimmi Hugh feels this article would be better of on Wikitionary as a dicdef, but certainly has no scopebeyond it. I'm not sure blue linking to IDONTLIKEIT is helpful to a collegial discussion. This is not a bad faith nomination, and I would urge editors to take care in the implication that it is, through linking to certain guidelines (note - not policies). However I would also urge Jimmi to calm down a bit, in light of his last edit summary. I don't feel any editor here is taking this personally, simply linking to guidelines unadvisedly. Let's all keep calm and get to the business at hand. Just my thoughts. M♠ssing Ace 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If consenting adults get their jollies from dumping on each other (or merely on the carpet, see Pinkville's research), my own reaction is less "I don't like it" than howls of derisive laughter, settling down to "Don't consenting adults do the durndest things?" and "It's a rum old world". In the last 48 hours or so, the likely candidate for next US Prez that I find less repellent has pandered to the booboisie in at least three ways that I like a lot less than the notion that somebody somewhere may be jerking off to the sight (or aroma or whatever) of somebody else's bowel movement sitting on something or other. (Perhaps we need the two graphically combined. George Grosz, where are you?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Ah, the Painter of the Hole (sadly, no images of these works to be found on the Internet). Pinkville (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade, the article is more than a mere dictionary definition and meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability as well, with flying colors. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a flying-color pass of WP's criteria for notability and verifiability can be obtained by mentions in (i) "Sit and Spin's Dictionary of Poo Sex"; (ii) transcript of the Deminski & Doyle Show (January 9, 2002); (iii) The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks; and (iv) a "Sex Dictionary" published by "Body Vibes Adult Toys" on mybodyvibes.com, then I wonder what a bog-standard pass would be (a single mention by Jerry Springer?). Maybe this activity is notable; if so, let's see the evidence of notability. We have, after all, been waiting for it since 09:29, 24 March 2005. And, as Pinkville has shown, this fails even as a dictionary definition. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Well, Jesus, how many Google hits does Springer get?! And who cleans his carpets? Pinkville (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge to Coprophilia - Well referenced, notability established, and properly organized. Take THAT, Encyclopedia Britannica! --Explodicle (T/C) 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • But you could say exactly the same of, say, technicolor yawn, yet it rightly is merely a redirect to vomiting. What's special about Cleveland steamer that isn't already covered by its more established equivalent terms? Pinkville (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redirect, no merge there is not reliable sources about the description beyond occasional usages. No reason to merge occasional usages in "popular culture" which describe nothing, only used to produce a shock value. Laudak (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this. I was directed here by someone whose attitude I didn't know until I'd made my decision. It wouldn't have mattered either way. This gives WP a bad name, and frankly, the cited uses are SOOOOO trivial. Let's try to keep a semblance of authority on the Internet, please???

TONY (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.