Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty trombone

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rusty trombone

Offensive, obscene, probably permanently harmful to the psyche of a child, stupid dictdef, no sources. Billy Blythe 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The first two criteria of the nom are not valid as Wikipedia is not censored. Harmful to the psyche of a child is too subjective to be a criteria. As for whether or not it's a dicdef, it does make some attempts to list popular cultural references to the "act" (which could be sourced, if they're not) which makes it more than a dicdef. We've been down this road before with Pitssburgh platter but I think this one is more on the Dirty Sanchez side of the issue and ought to stay. Also, I realized while reading it that I always thought this phrase referred to a different sexual act. Ah, Wikipedia....always teaching me something. Dina 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are you sure you made this nom in good faith? Your own user page Billy Blythe has some material that some might feel is Offensive, obscene, probably permanently harmful to the psyche of a child. I personally am not particularly offended by the language there (though not really a fan of harshly mocking either transexuals or women) but then again, I'm not offended by Rusty trombone either. Dina 17:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, it's good faith, all right. I have no qualms about putting offensive material in user space, but Wikipedia namespace is not owned or maintained by any one person, hence my concerns about the stupidity of the article. BTW, I've removed the objectionable content on my user page. I personally think that the idea of transsexualism is offensive and total fiction, but that's just what squicks me, and the PC Police here don't care about my minority opinion (cf. WP:STEAM). Anyway, this is about the rusty trombone, not me. Billy Blythe 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I withdraw my suggestion that this was a bad faith nom and hope you'll both accept my apology and see where I might have gotten confused. I still disagree with your Afd reasoning, (as well as, frankly, many of your statements above) but you're right, this is about Rusty Trombone. So let's see what everyone else has to say. Cheers. Dina 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dictionary definition. JASpencer 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yuck, but notable. If anyone wants to clean up (no pun intended) this article, I think it'd be fine. Wooty 19:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have every confidence in the nominator's good faith, but his arguments do not convince.--Runcorn 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't censored takes care of the first three (it is a parent's job to decide what web content is viewed by his/her children, not ours). Slightly more than a dictdef, and no sources merits a cleanup tag, not deletion. (Unverifiable, on the other hand, would be a valid reason, but it isn't applicable here.) GassyGuy 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Culturally appropriate. Lolife 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, highly referenced in culture. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting it would set a dangerous precedent, and allow users to slate every other sex-related article for deletion. --Spartacusprime 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as the nominator has given no valid Wikipolicy-based reasons for his nomination. "Offensive" and "stupid" are not criteria for deletion here, otherwise we'd delete Jerry Falwell. wikipediatrix 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keeping it would set a dangerous precedent, and allow users to assert every other ludicrous bit of sexcruft article for inclusion. Guy 10:26, 28 September 2006 (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.