Deletion of Cleveland steamer (8th nomination)

Comment: 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 Federal Communications Commission|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:V)

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 , the article is already expanded beyond a simple definition. Like it or not, this is a pop-culture issue. Also, the argument using  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD||WP:trivia)

Comment: possibly merge''' with Coprophilia which is very short at this point).  The article appears to be well sourced.  It's gross, but Wikipedia is |not censored for content.  It is definitely more than a dictionary definition.  I see no reason to delete this (and think that an 8th nomination is a waste of people's time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)