Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty trombone (4th 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. —fetch ·comms 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty trombone

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a dictionary definition. Half the article is composed of what is basically unsourced trivia. Has been nominated for deletion 3 times before; the last time (which was in 2007) was closed as no consensus. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a dictionary. We're an encyclopedia. People, please stop trying to make Wikipedia a shoddy dictionary. Urban Dictionary exists for a reason! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS that make sure it meets WP:GNG. Maybe it can be the next Gropecunt Lane and appear on the main page. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, most articles that make it to the main page have accompanying images....I don't think Raul would want a picture of a "rusty trombone" going on the main page! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify it the sex act is notable and can be exapanded though need substantial trivia removed. I wish WP:IDONTLIKE was a valid argument here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a couple of celebrities have used the term in passing doesn't mean that the sex act itself is automatically notable. In order to prove that the sex act is notable, you would need to prove that significant numbers of people have actually tried it, or engage in it on a regular basis. It seems to me like this might just be something that people talk about but no one actually does . Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef with trivial passing mentions of the term, but somebody might consider adding the citations to Wiktionary. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is way beyond a dicdef, its got usage and FCC fines associated with the use of the term. The nominators logic is incorrect demanding that that urban legends be true, which is not a Wikipedia requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FCC fine is probably better mentioned in the Deminski & Doyle article, since the event centered around them. We could even add a link to the relevant Wiktionary entry ([1]) to the Deminski & Doyle page, if we were to merge that section into their article. Stonemason89 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps after deleting the page, we could place a salted link to the relevant Wiktionary entry? This is what was done with blumpkin, and I think it would work here too. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. It's much more than a definition. Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per rationale of Lug.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2010 (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.