Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (8th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The nominator sounded like he/she was combing the list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines just to find a deletion rationale, and even commented that his/her rationale is now weaker per cleanup near the end of the debate. Also, some "delete" arguments were based on that the subject was disgusting, which is true (unless you have the fetish or something). However, Wikipedia is not censored in regards to these topics. However, the "keep" side is not immune from problems: voting "keep" because this is the article's 8th nomination is not a valid argument. Consensus can change. —Kurykh 01:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cleveland steamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This has been a tough topic for those who suggested its deletion in the past, but many were in favour of deletion in the previous attempts throughout this article's 18-month-plus history. Anyway, I think I've finally nailed it: 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. The article currently has three references, followed by an unconsolidated collection of unsourced trivial passing mentions of the term. Let's examine the references in detail, in reverse order: 3. The Family Guy reference - undoubtedly trivial. 2. The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks reference. I can't see this in the preview on amazon.com, so I have no idea whether this is a non-trivial mention or not, and I expect it would be, and even if not trivial, it would be the sole example of a non-trivial source about the subject. 1. Partial transcript of the Deminski & Doyle Show reference is totally trivial as well. I also searched Google Books and found two references that refer to this sexual "act" and not to steamboats, both of which appear to be highly trivial, the latter even having to explain what the term means. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and when the triviality of the references to this term are stripped away, it does not merit a stand-alone article. Strip away the original research and you have a permastub. It deserves a place in Wiktionary and a mention in the coprophilia article as an apocryphal sexual act, but certainly not its own article which consists of mere WP:TRIVIA. Delete. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete trivial, not expandable beyond a dicdef. Article is basically a small collection of times this has been mentioned in popular culture, which is by nature trivial information (there's a reason that all the "x in popular culture" articles are being deleted left and rght). Poorly sourced, to boot. Suggest that closing admin necessarily ignore any and all votes whose rationale is simply the number of times this has been nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I definetly would not have voted delete in any previous AfD's, but after looking through the history and checking numerous sources, i see no way of making this article long enough to make it worthy of wikipedia. It is simply a dictionary definition and i would also seriously consider the term far from widespread. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given in the previous half a dozen arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia used to have an article (and this was a while back) called Unusual sex acts, which was a very long list of these sorts of things. Now, the article was entirely unsourced, most of the content was unnecessary, and it was very poorly written, so I, along with everyone else, voted for it's deletion. Now, I see that there are a number of articles now, Cleveland steamer being one of them, that is not exclusively an obscure piece of vulgarity. It has enough context within popular culture to be considered notable, but not enough to warrant it's own article. Could we perhaps revive this list in some way, shape or form, but including only the small handful of notable topics that meet this criteria? Calgary 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally trivial sex act, impossible to expand beyond dicdef. And lemme add this too... Eww. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one wishes to delete an article, one can propose it however many times until one day the balance of people at AfD should by normal variation happen to be towards delete, and then it cannot be reinstated without Deletion Review. It is necessary to win only one time in eight (or ten or twenty). If one wishes to keep an article, it is necessary that the balance favor keeping all eight times.Tthis is different from all other closure rules in any sphere of activity, except for knife fights, where you also have to defeat every possible opponent.DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N seems to be an irrational argument. The article cites sources that discuss the topic. The sources are from a third party. One is even an FCC notice of liability discussing the topic. If you want, I am sure there is a porn site or two that can be used as sources but that seems to be a bit unreasonable, what is used seems fine to me. As for WP:WINAD, the article is already expanded beyond a simple definition. Like it or not, this is a pop-culture issue. Also, the argument using WP:trivia was equally bad. The article does not contain a trivia list. From what I see, this seems to be a deletion based more or less on the limited use of the term. This is an invalid rational. However, given the history of numerous nominations. It will only be a little while before this is nominated again. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CraigMonroe. The issue here is definitely its status as a pop-culture item, and its general disgustingness; there are a lot of articles dealing with unpleasant things that just keep getting nominated for deletion over and over until deletion wins out (remember Gay Nigger Association of America?) If the article's got third party sources, it deserves to stay, and it does. This is a nontrivial act with numerous mentions in current culture. Chubbles 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the truth comes out. You admit it is cited but think to topic is innappropriate yet you still claimed as a basis that the article was not sourced. The basis for deletion is in violation of WP:CENSOR With this evidence, it appears this may be a bad faith nomination. Also, to respond above, the fact it is disgusting does not inherently give it notability. The fact it has become a pop-culture reference because of its disgustingness does give it notability. Can't you see the difference?CraigMonroe 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is you who misunderstands. This article is not encylopedic. It doesn't matter if you list a million sources and everyone in the world decides it is a fun and not disguisting thing todo, because it remains a definition that is in no way expandable. Also, the comment above your own doubted the Notability, it did not claim it should be censored, you seem to be taking this way too personally to prove a point that is simply not neceasary to make. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to tell you but if there are verifiable third party sources that discuss it, it is notable. See WP:N. h i s admitted it is sourced (contrary to what was originally stated). Now the argument is its unencyclopdiac. You argue it is not expandable beyond a definition, but ignore the fact it already has expanded beyond a simple definition--it is a pop-culture issue. I can think of other things to add to it. How about health concerns? Something dealing with its actual level of popularity? Etc. But hey, lets ignore these things because it is disgusting. Again, from the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nom. The nominators rational has already changed once and admitted his original basis--a lack of sourcing--was innaccurate. CraigMonroe 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont't care about notability, as i said, there is no way you could expand it. It is not wide enough for verifiable studies into health to have been done and it definetly does nto need more trivia about popularity. On the note of notability though, i don't not see numerous verifiable citations, so unless some are added it will be deleted. Three citation, with one being from a bad cartoon known to make up details for the sake of comedy do not class as proof of notability. Perhaps if you can add 5 reputable sources with some details that are not trivial this article will be deserving of an article. As it stands you are assuming people's reasoning and entirely wrong about it's deserving to stay. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care about notability? That is the basis proferred for its deletion. As for not being able to expand it further, I can think of more, how about a section about where the term came from? As for a claim I am assuming peopel's reasoning, he said it was sourced after originally saying it wasn't. And don't tell me I am wrong about an opinion. You have a different opinion than me. Fine. I can live with that. There is no right or wrong. However, the fact remains, there is evidence to show this was a bad faith nomination, and that even the nominator admits there are sources; which means it meets notability requirements. Nothing more is needed.CraigMonroe 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added four or five sources, and split the article into thre distinct sections. Anything else? CraigMonroe 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're all still trivial mentions of the topic (http://www.femdomale.com/human-toilet.html doesn't even mention the term "Cleveland steamer"). I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To quote r e s e a r c h "I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly." You are starting to understand why the other references don't exit, why this is not "just a dictionary definition," and why it doesn't fail WP:N. The fact the act has been discussed in numerous pop-culture references makes it notable--unlike other non-notable sex acts. Without its pop culture basis, it wouldn't be notable. You keep claiming it is trivial, however, in this case, the pop-cultrual references are a basis for its notability. Its not trivial. CraigMonroe 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are really stretching. There are four sources that cite the term and discuss it. All from third parties. There is a book about Adolf Hitler that discusses him practicing the act. There is an article that discusses the health risks involved. There are several articles that discuss the pop-culture r4eferences of the term. You yourself stated "It's sourced." After back and fourth communication, your argument changed to it "not being a proper encyclopedia topic." The number of sources seems to state otherwise. I spent 10 minutes online on the term and pulled five seperate sources. There is still mroe that can be added. For example, the source of the phrase, or a "how to" discussing the use of human toilet furniture. The article has been expanded well beyond a simple definition. Again, the proper thing to do would be tag for cleanup and actually clean the article up. It isn't tough. Just use your brain and think of ways to make the article better. How about a discussion of the begative cultural view of the practice? From my perspective, and this topic does not really interest me (I only noticed it because of the numerous nominations for deletion--all of which make the same or similar arguments) the AFD tag is improper. CraigMonroe 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All your "expansion" has done is cause the page to become full of even more trivia. Please note it does not matter if the nomination is slightly off as long as the point that this can not become an encyclopedia article is made. The fact is that you have tried to expand it and all that has happened is that the page has even more trivia on it. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. For example, a mention of health risks is anything but "trivia." Not to mention a psychological profile that discussed one of the 20th century's most infamous leaders is not trivia. Furthermore, WP:Trivia does not prohibit trivia, as long as it is incorporated into the article and serves a purpose. As stated by numerous other posters--particularly during the last seven nominations, is that the pop-culture references are part of its notability. Furthermore, you also argued it could not be expanded. I expanded it. I added several sources. I found alternative definitions, noted its effect on a famous leader, and found health risks which you argued could not be found because it was a minor act. It appears as if there is more out there than people are willing to admit. Again, AFD is improper. CraigMonroe 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment How about a discussion of the psychological factors involved? CraigMonroe 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, This is a form of human eroticism and should not be judged by the reader on the validity of or opinions of the those offended. Information is king, censorship is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.60.120 (talk • contribs)

Comment I Quote from WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific religious or social tasteful to all users or adhere to specific norms or requirements... Being "distasteful" is not sufficient reason to delete. Aleta 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is taking notability way, way too far. I support notability to the extent that it keeps us from being obliged to tolerate one biographical article per person/band/group who has ever existed, and one website article per site on the internet. This would make Wikipedia unmaintainable. However, if we start nit picking every article out there and trying as hard as we can to judge the sourcing as "non-trivial" to get them deleted, we will lose a lot of verifiable information. I would be strongly opposed to this article being outright deleted, if you must get rid of the article, merge and redirect it to coprophilia as suggested above, but don't delete verifiable information. Also, I would advise people to restrain from screaming "it's wrong / it's disgusting" in their delete rationales, as this may suggest that such !votes have been influenced by simple narrow-mindedness. - Zeibura (Talk) 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentSo your problem with this article is that the reasoning is correct but in your opinion "nit-picking"? You don't actually make any claim as to how this page is notable or how the sources can be considered non-trivial. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Basically, I see two issues here, one of which I have opinions on and the other I have no opinion on. The first is whether the infomation should be deleted, which seeing as the nominator has brought this to articles for deletion, he obviously believes it should. I disagree. The way I see it, this term, whether written about at length or not, has made it into popular culture and the fact that it has made it into popular culture is verified by the last two references on the list, while the definition is verified by 2, 3 and 4 (which looks like a solid reliable source to me), makes it worthy of inclusion. It is verifiable. Therefore, it should not be a red link, and should definitely not be a salted red link. Notability is not synonymous with verifiability, and the reason verifiability is a policy whereas notability is simply a guideline is because notability is subjective, and can lead to losing verifiable information.
    The second issue is whether it should have its own article, or whether it should be mentioned briefly in the coprophilia article, this I don't particularly care about, so long as we don't lose verifiable information which might be searched for. As for this nomination being nitpickery, yes, IMO it does seem to have been done in prejudice against the article, for the same reasons CaveatLector gave. Also, we've been here seven times, find a new way out other than straight deletion. They do exist. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, from the article name, I first thought this article had to do with shipping on the Great Lakes. Boy, was I ever wrong! Anyway, since I'm here ... in addition to receiving news attention through its use in a U.S. Congress staff hoax email and being addressed by the United States Federal Communications Commission, cleveland steamer has been a topic of radio, television, and music. The real issue is whether there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. In this case, there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. So keep. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed to Neutral It belongs in Wiktionary. To those who say this article is more than a dictionary definition, I would answer thusly: There are three sections beyond the definition. One is about erotic humiliation, which has its own article so that section is unnecessary. The second is about the health risks, which could be adequately covered under coprophilia. The remaining one is the pop culture section, which runs afoul of WP:TRIVIA. Strip out the unnecessary crap, and it's just a dictionary definition. --Jaysweet 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Retracted my delete vote after further consideration... I still question whether the non-Wiktionary content is valuable, but I am starting to see the argument from the other perspective) --Jaysweet 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must admit that the article is in a better shape now. I'm not going to withdraw my nomination, but my initial arguments are somewhat weaker as a result of the expansion with encyclopedic content, although the section stubs are lacking.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This goes to show the article is expandable, and the proper thing would be tag for clean up and not AFD. CraigMonroe 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Keep This article is sourced even better, and has more varied and encyclopedic content than the nominator's other attempt at deletion. Is it just me, or is there a pattern of nominating well-sourced, notable sex acts for deletion that the user finds distasteful? I mean, come on, Amazon sells Cleveland Steamer t-shirts, the term is even mentioned in FCC transcripts concerning obscenity on Howard Stern's show and you're trying to tell me it's just some obscure term that isn't a notable fixture in culture? And that's after the twelve reliable and significant sources in the article? What a crock. VanTucky (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VanTucky hits the nail on the head. Yes its distasteful, but its a term used quite frequently so the obscure term argument doesnt hold water. Article is well sourced, Fed Govt transcripts use it... its certainly a notable term.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I retracted my Delete vote, but I can't quite see myself changing all the way to a keep. I have no doubt whatsoever that this term is notable, and should be included in Wiktionary. I still have reservations about whether it deserves it's own article. It's because this is a term rather than an action. Coprophilia clearly needs an article, but I'm not sure that Cleveland steamer needs anything beyond a Wiktionary entry. For comparison, I offer the example that Mammary intercourse has an article (because it is an action rather than just a term), but Boobjob does not. --Jaysweet 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment I don't understand this particular line of reasoning. It seems that the first sentence says exactly what the action is. Aleta 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it seems to me that Cleveland Steamer is comprised solely of an action, rather than Coprophilia, which is a term to describe a fetish that encompasses many different acts. VanTucky (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_steamer_(8th_nomination)&oldid=1137720245"