Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez

Listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, but it isn't one, it's a dicdef, and dicdefs aren't speedyable, so I moved it here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Somehow, in the course of my development, I managed to miss out on this rather colorful and scatological idea. I figured it just had to be made up. Can we make this go away? - Lucky 6.9 22:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it a lot: I could have gone all my life without knowing that this was common enough or contemplated enough to get a name. Geogre 22:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• This is a common meme on the lower sorts of websites (e.g. Something Awful).
• Keep (but oh god). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang dicdef. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Also the name of a televsion series a la Jackass. -Sean Curtin 01:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I think that frequent references to it in pop culture (so to speak) make it notable enough to keep... of course, I do *not* want to be the person doing the further research to expand the article, nor do I wish to see any related images... Mindspillage 01:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this, along with teabagging, is one of those things where a slang word goes rapidly into widespread use but then as quickly disappears. I know that Wikipedia's electronic nature means that it can adapt quickly, but the mechanism for knowing that an allowed slang term has expired is someone stumbling across it and bringing it back to VfD, and that's why I vote delete on the slang terms that I think are ephemeral. I wouldn't say that something needs to be X-years old or anything, but some terms are inherently more limited than others. Geogre 02:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should not start deleting pages on the basis of what they might become, only on what they are. Non-notable subjects are perfectly reasonable deletion subjects; not so much for subjects that might become non-notable in the future. -Sean Curtin 03:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, its a common enough phrase, although I doubt its a common act —siroχo 02:40, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Why not make this into a page about the TV show and casually mention the source of the name? - Lucky 6.9 02:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The TV show is not the most common usage of the term (certainly not in the US at least, and probably not in the UK either). -Sean Curtin 03:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - when I saw this on Special:Newpages I thought to myself that someone had created an article on that telly programme where the burly Welsh boys hurt each other in imaginative ways. I wasn't aware of this particular definition... If the two can't share the same article then disambiguate but I would certainly say keep, disgusting though it is. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Dirty sanchez since this is not about the proper name TV series and shouldn't have the capital S. Jamesday 05:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point, I missed that... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Sanchez" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. -Sean Curtin 20:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Who hasn't heard of a dirty sanchez? Maybe we should make one big article with all those crazy sexual practices that exist only in jest (i hope, anyway). --Tothebarricades.tk 08:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke by anon. Have a good look at what's going on here. The article itself claims it's an urban legend rather than an actual practice, but Snopes hasn't heard of it. It's just the same sort of toilet humour as that posted by another anon to the Hippophilia article a while ago, and not remotely encyclopedic. Its appearance on Something Awful is no surprise, um, is that really supposed to support its being kept? At worst, redirect to South Park, but I doubt it's significant enough in the series to merit even that. Andrewa 14:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand but don't make me read it again. Zocky 02:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Rather than discussing its intellectual credentials, I think it should be recognized that it is an accurate description of a growing pop-culture reference. Who cares if it appears on Something Awful or South Park, both those topics have entries on this site, so why should that prove to be a slight on this topic? I vote it should be kept.Shipton 07:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - There may be more to this then meets the eye. --Buster 08:13, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of this from several different places. It's notable, however gross, and deserves an article. Needs to be expanded, though. DryGrain 16:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Mostly because I find it personally erotic, and it needs expanding.

Listen, I've been doing extensive research on this topic and its bullshit. Doesn't exist. This should have been deleted decades ago. It's also deeply non-encyclopaedic in nature.

The term has been used enough that it prompted me to do a search on the internet for it, which brought me to this website. Though I'm not grateful for the mental image, I appreciate that the definition was here.