Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) (2nd 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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sex)[edit]

This is a slang dictionary definition that has already been transferred to Wiktionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidest thing ever. That said, keep, it's verifiable and encyclopedic, and the part about "Dirty Sanchez in pop culture" doesn't belong anywhere but Wikipedia. --Ashenai 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like last time and next time. Kappa 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep, let's not do this again. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing a compelling argument to delete. And while I appreciate the concern, as Latino, I'm totally OK with this article :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like the idea of indirectly attacking Latinos with scatological articles like this. --Ruby 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Latinos may differ with that, see above. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Ashenai's reasons. ~ Apollo Creed 23:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ruby, you bring up an excellent point that I brought up elsewhere, but didn't include here because it's not something that gets an article deleted on Wikipedia. To the contrary, the filthier and more degrading to humanity it is, the more likely it is to stay, even after it has been transwikied. What's relevant is that this is an example of what Wikipedia is not, and all of you who are voting to keep this are either appallingly ignorant of the promulgated deletion policies, too dense to understand them, or don't really know what an encyclopedia is. I'm guessing that you just don't know the difference between a slang dictionary and an encyclopedia. All of you who voted to keep this nonsense should be thankful to all the Latinos out there who have let this joke continue to exist. If this were called an "African Buttpicker" or a "Dirty Jewboy," or a "Faggot 'Stache," there would be no question about how inappropriate it is. What if this were your name attached to this act? Would you still think it should be included in an encyclopedia? I'm realizing more and more that dicdefs get saved from deletion all the time because they appeal to a certain mindset, and the policy on Wikipedia not being a dictionary probably needs to be changed to reflect common practice. Apparently, Wikipedia is one of the largest repositories of filthy jokes on the Internet, and editors of Wikipedia like it that way. Wikipedia is really a bloated and pretentious collection of advertisements, conceits, PR blurbs, wacky politics, ephemera, base perversions, and irrelevant pop culture with frequent delusions of grandeur. This, right here, is the biggest hindrance to Wikipedia ever attaining any widespread acceptance, so all of you had better keep it on the QT as long as you can. How are you going to feel when some concerned parents group finds out that Wikipedia not only condones, but encourages disgusting shit jokes? How would you feel if you wrote it? I hope you'll be very proud of your work. You have every right to feel special and righteous for letting the truth be told about the Dirty Sanchez. And don't forget the Tossed Salad. Type Tossed salad into Wikipedia, and you get to find out that it's another phrase for licking someone's asshole before you find out what kind of salad it is! I can imagine there will be a strong unilateral decision made to purge this encyclopedia of ridiculous crap like the Dirty Sanchez when enough concerned parents object. Don't underestimate the ferocity and power of parents who think that their children are in danger. If they can get laws changed to reflect their fears, they can certainly ban Wikipedia from school computers. All they have to do is put the fear of God in school superintendents, and things will change. It's only a matter of time. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a policy that wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Actually if wikipedia was banned from school computers that might solve a lot of our vandalism problems. Kappa 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ashenai and Kappa. dbtfz ^talk 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not advocating censorship. I'm arguing my case for deletion because "Dirty Sanchez" is clearly a transwikied dictionary definition, and this is why I feel it must be deleted. Maybe you let my hatred for gratuitous obscenity confuse you before you washed your hands of the matter and decided you wouldn't be responsible. It shows a special kind of well-developed hypocrisy to cite Wikipedia policy supporting your position while blindingly ignoring the policy about what Wikipedia is not. BrianGCrawfordMA 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not censored, this is a notable term, blah blah blah. Cyde Weys 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Things may change, but it won't be because of the nominator, and it won't be today. Until such a time as things *do* change, Wikipedia provides a very broad strata of knowledge and information, which will never be acceptable to everyone. All we can do is make it as useful as possible, for now and for the future. I can appreciate what the nominator wants, but it's not consistent with the goals of Wikipedia, nor should it be. I hope they'll continue to edit Wikipedia though -- like any Internet community, Wikipedia has some callow people here and there, and balance is always welcome. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AfDs on taint, donkey punch, teabagging, etc. youngamerican (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent and per Adrian's comments. More than just a dicdef. Refer Mr. Crawford to VirginsWithFluffyBunniesWhichReproduceByCleanParthenogenesisPedia. Barno 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the brightest topic in the world, but notable. --Depakote 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google says 90K hits, which I hope is entirely everyone who could be talked into such a gross activity. D e nni ☯ 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop censorship. Keep the page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.70.51 (talk • contribs) .

Keeep and make a separate repository of pop culture references. (unsigned comment from anon)

Keep it! Why start censoring everything? Real life isn't always politcally correct. Just because we don't like something doesn't deny it exists.

Keep Dirty Sanchez (sex) is a bona fide pop culture phenomenon, and it should remain documented.--Ktwombley 08:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep it too, I found it useful.
Offensiveness, racial overtones, or puerile interest are not enough to make something unencyclopedic. Lack of verifiability, distribution or infamy is. Keep as this would appear to fall in the latter category. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:16, 24 February 2006 (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.