Deletion of Cleveland steamer (4th nomination)

Comment: Although it is gross, and dubious in ever having actually occured, it is a widely known and used term.  If references are needed ... oh God, I don't want to have to look any up ... eww.  Nonetheless, it passes  with flying colours, and any other standard I could require it to uphold.  If you don't buy the citations, that's one thing, but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to dig up ones everyone can agree on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: perhaps speedily under #Applicability|criteria #5. This is an absurd nomination, sources exist and it's not an issue anymore
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: per nominator (or '''transwiki''' to Wiktionary). From : "To support an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers ''about'' the term &mdash; not books and papers ''that use'' the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use &mdash; but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources &mdash; are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." It appears that ''cleveland steamer'' is exactly such a term: there is demonstrable use of the term, but it has not yet been the subject of any writing that Wikipedia can actually use as a source. Therefore, the subject is necessarily wikipedia:original research|original research and can't have an article written that conforms to policy yet. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)