Deletion of Cleveland steamer (sixth nomination)

Comment: I've seen some horrifying stuff doing my newpage patrol thing, but this takes the prize.  I agree with the nominator in spirit and agree with his reasoning per , but disagree with the salty language.  BTW, I have a lexicon of slang or two that have "definitions" that look just like this article.  Definition plus examples of usage in sentence form or quotation.  All it needs now is called a noun and given an IPA pronunciation transcription.  I highly doubt Wiktionary would take this, as we aren't quite the dumping ground Wikipedians think they are.  Also, I first heard of this in 1992 when it was college slang, not fodder for TV jokesters, and there was no mention of the "steamroller motion of the buttocks."  I have a conventional ass, and mine won't move 360 deg.  It sounds like an embellishment.  I believe the common-sense etymology involving how feces steam in cool temperatures.  Origin in 1992, to me, means neologism banned according to .  This appears to have been a very, very bad article, a real troublemaker, a point of contention, and a source of snicker material for vandals for a very long time.  I must question badlydrawnjeff's neutrality (but not his zeal) as he has consistently voted to strongly keep this without a single rational reason that I can find in six AfD's.  I don't understand "valid pop culture term" as a reason to keep.  This is a contentious issue, and I hope you don't mind having a newbie like me chime in, as perhaps I may offer a new perspective after researching this for a day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD||WP:NEO)

Comment: AfD isn't something you can repeatedly use until you get the 'right' result. And   can work the other way - it can be kept because although it isn't much more than a definition, it won't be found in many dictionaries and thus is useful. Your ''encyclopeditron'' (however much I like the word) claim has no evidence supporting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Inclusion of this article does not really advance the interests of the encyclopedia, overall. It's a very, very marginally notable entity. Let's say it adds .0001 ''encyclopeditrons'' of value to the Wikipedia. Then on the other hand you have the chance of this being picked up and used to give a bad impression of Wikipedia, invitation to vandalism, attracting the undesirable sort of editor, really inappropriate for children (and yes I know we are not censored for minors, but I don't think ''this'' is what is meant), general ickiness, and so on. We can say that overall the article ''subtracts'' .0002 ''encyclopeditrons'' of value. Therefore it is bad for the 'pedia, and the closing admin should  and delete it regardless. That is what   is for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR)