Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (5th nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. --Coredesat 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey punch

Donkey punch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is, I believe, the fifth nomination this article has received. Although reliable sources do exist for this article, it's not the sort of thing that is suitable for Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales himself has opposed to this article's existence, trimming it down hugely in one edit. The angry dragon article was deleted because such a definition belongs in Urban Dictionary, and the donkey punch is exactly the same: it may be slightly verifiable, and although Wikipedia is not censored, just because something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion. This is about a fake (there is one mere claim in the talk page that it has been carried out in reality) violent, illegal and misogynistic sexual act, with no claims for notability. The talk page and the previous deletion archives have much information and debate on the article and its validity. While articles on things like a band with an album and an EP that has supported a major artist are deleted, articles like this one along with its notorious siblings rusty trombone, Cleveland steamer and Dirty Sanchez (which belong on urban dictionary, sure, but not here, and I may well list for deletion if this is successful) are, as some have noted, what makes a mockery of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Let's get rid of the donkey punch once and for all. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant keep, but would be delighted if someone could come up with valid grounds for deletion. Unfortunately it is a genuine sexual practice - see this NON WORK SAFE LINK for more than you ever wanted to know about it. Much as I would love to enforce WP:IDONTLIKEIT in this case, this article is sourceable and far more than a dicdef. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Iridescenti said, it is well sourced, and is more than a dic def. The fact that it hasn't happened isn't grounds for deletion. I can't really see your issue with this. Obviously, it isn't the kind of thing that many people want to read about, but neither are most things we have here. J Milburn 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - surely the fact that Jimbo Wales edited this article when he could have just deleted it is an argument in favour of keeping it? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I'm primarily responsible for the article in its current form (see history if you like). I'm not sure where this prejudice against what should be in an encyclopedia comes from as Wikipedia is not censored. Certainly the fact that it's fake isn't something that has any bearing on its notability. I did a similar WP:HEY on autocunnilingus but I'm letting that one go (after trimming there's only one WP:RS). But as sexual terminology goes, this one actually figured (in meta-slang form) in a national scandal and one of the sources is a US Senate page. I don't know how often sexual slang, no matter how real, makes it to that lofty height. Call it stupid, call it ... irresponsible, but it's a "real" fake, and it's a notable fake at that. What Jimbo did was exactly right, he excluded the pointless wankery, er, original research from the article. It's the kind of article that attracts the "Howard Stern mentioned donkey punching on his show last night" additions. But we seem to have that under control now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced and well written. No valid reason given for deletion. DCEdwards1966 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dhartung. All four previous nominations have resulted in keeps, and the article has never been stronger than it is now. The nominator implies that this article is comparable to the article on "angry dragon", but this article is clearly neither a dicdef or a neologism, and the implication that Jimbo supports the deletion of this article based on his improvement of it seems odd to me. --Maxamegalon2000 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well sourced. The fact that something is lewd and apocryphal does not mean it should not be included. Consider it a modern version of a Catherine the Great and her horse story. -24.68.187.88 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. For no other reason than that following four failed nominations for deletion, a fifth nomination, without more, should be foreclosed. Surely some kind of claim preclusion can attach to that kind of consensus. Indeed, WP:SK states speedy keeping is appropriate if "[t]he nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it . . . . Examples of this include . . . making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Pop Secret 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - let me reiterate and expand on my arguments. Firstly, the link posted by irisdescenti does not show a genuine "donkey punch"; merely a punch that stops short of hitting the female on the back of her head with any real force as the link states. Secondly, I am neither a vandal nor trying to disrupt the encyclopedia (I've made a good article from scratch and have contributed positively for a long time). Thirdly, although this may have been mentioned in multiple third-party reliable sources, is it truly notable? If this weren't sexually/controversially charged and was a so-called 'boring' topic with the same number of references, would it still pass the notability test? Is Wikipedia a place where such jokes can thrive? How is 'donkey punch' not a neologism? I actually think Wikipedia loses a lot of valuable information through deletion, yet articles like this are allowed to exist (and yes, I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not censored, and of all the policies and guidelines). Fourthly, to quote the talk page, "Not only does this kind of gratuitous prurience threaten to destroy the good work you people have done... eventually, you're going to find yourself slapped with lawsuits when a young boy pulls a stunt like this on a young girl, and the girl's mother finds out the he got the idea for it on Wikipedia. Trust me. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but, as a JD, I can guarantee you I'd take that case. If you want, I can show you all the cases in which you could be held liable." Finally, the fact that Jimbo did not want an article about the concept of the donkey punch as it is currently held is a good sign that it should be deleted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I certainly do not believe in censorship in general and on Wikipedia (articles on real sexual practices carried out by more than a tiny minority of people should certainly be included), but having disgusting jokes in an encyclopedia makes a mockery of it, as I have stated.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response If I may fairly answer your objections, research: First, we use neither the somethingawful description or the porn movie as sources (although they'd actually be helpful resources for the article, best not open the floodgates). I wouldn't describe it as a "genuine sexual practice" except in the broadest sense, where a subject of pornography counts as a "practice", but it's certainly a genuine subject of pornography (ridiculous and ultimately more of a joke than a route to orgasm, but you never know). Second, I don't see your nomination as disruptive, and WP:AGF should apply here, but people are always trying to get rid of stuff because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I confess I believe that's a large part of your argument. Third, again, as sexual slang, it's notable -- very few sexual slang terms come up in congressional investigations. (Yes, others did, but this was approximately the only one the newspapers would print ...) Yes, it's a neologism, but WP:NEO is not a blanket prohibition on articles about neologisms, it is a guideline that restricts their intemperate application. Fourth, Wikipedia does not have a policy on dangerous practices, so far as I know; we have Molotov cocktail and self-injury and BASE jumping and so forth. In fact, there have been edit wars over the use of safety disclaimers in articles. I don't know how many times we have to say it's not "real" or quote Dan Savage on the risks to get the point across. Finally, you misrepresent Jimbo Wales because he did not want the article in its prior form. He expressed no opinion on its current form. He literally instructed editors to "start over from scratch", and his first words on the Talk page were "I insist that nothing go back into this article without a proper source." That doesn't read to me as you represented it.--Dhartung | Talk 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response re disruption and bad faith: I would add that asserting disruption and assuming good faith are separate concepts. A user, as here, might very well have only good motives yet nevertheless in acting on those motives, end up causing well-intentioned disruption. I've been on the losing side of AfDs before and remain unconvinced by the rationales provided by the prevailing side. Still, if I renominated merely because I remained unconvinced, it would of course be disruption, regardless of how fervently I thought I was right. That's the situation here. Accordingly, the elements of a speedy keep are met and that should be the result of this nomination. Pop Secret 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further response - Nowehere do I say the Something Awful article and the porn movie prove the practice exists - they prove that the practice exists as a concept. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on things that haven't actually happened. This is precisely the sort of article we should have on Wikipedia, for the "Howard Stern mentioned this last night - what did he mean by it" searcher. As (repeatedly) said above, this is a phrase that has been used in the US Senate, not something made up in school one day, and every delete argument on this and the previous four AfDs boils down to some variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I say below in the twin AfDs on Cannabis cultivation, just because something's potentially dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it - we have Nuclear weapon design and Ricin extraction, for god's sake. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to responses - Firstly, your stereotyping of teenage boys is unnecessary, and they may well stumble across Wikipedia while searching for porn as Wikipedia is often the first search result in Google when many different terms are put in.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not my 'unnecessary stereotyping of teenage boys' - I'm referring to your line "you're going to find yourself slapped with lawsuits when a young boy pulls a stunt like this on a young girl, and the girl's mother finds out the he got the idea for it on Wikipedia". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well sourced. With 226,000 hits on Google[1], the term has a secure enough place in popular culture to warrant an article, even if it is apocryphal as a sexual practice. TreveXtalk 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and sourced, and AfD isn't a shoot till you win game unfortunately. Lets not nominate this again. - Denny 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is certainly that in many of these repeat nominations (I wouldn't assume it here, but this isn't the 14th go round like some others have had), remember you only have to get deleted once then CSD A4 means it's dead for good. The deletionists just need to hope that the keepers aren't watching once. Carlossuarez46 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. Sorry, I also don't know what to make of the Jimbo argument in the nomination? If Jimbo didn't like it he would have deleted rather than edited it (I assume he has that power), but I don't know him and wouldn't presume to speak on his behalf as the nominator appears to be doing... Carlossuarez46 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism and hoax. 'The term is not strictly defined or well-documented; at least one source attests to the move being "made up." If someone read this article, believed it, and tried it, the result could be severe brain trauma for their victim. Edison 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While doing research for a paper I am presenting at the Western States Folklore Society Annual Meeting 2007, I came across this debate regarding the Donkey Punch. I am strongly in favor of keeping the Donkey Punch as an article. Dan Savage (who is referenced in this debate) refers to activities such as the Donkey Punch as Extreme Sex Acts, and I am currently researching Extreme Sex Acts as a form of folklore. They are quite obviously folklore, as they exist in variation, are anonymous in origin, and are passed as a traditional form of humor. Under all of these criteria, NO item of folklore would qualify for a Wikipedia article, though articles on folktales, specific types of jokes (lawyer jokes, blonde jokes), festivals, and religious rites abound. These are ALL forms of folklore that are readily accepted in the Wikipedia community. Granted, most folktales that are included are in print and frequently on film (due to Disney), as in general, they are not told by word of mouth anymore. But I find it a double standard that one genre of folklore is included and another is not. Perhaps the Donkey Punch should be included in an article about the genre entirely, rather than having it's own article, but removing it entirely is ignoring a significant part of our contemporary folk culture. Just a note: much of what is found on urbandictionary.com is what folklorists call "folk speech." I understand that each individual item of folk speech could not be listed on Wikipedia, but Extreme Sex Acts have a relatively small canon (far smaller than the canon of folktales) and could reasonably be listed in some fashion on Wikipedia. For a verifiable source, I refer you to Dan Savage, as listed below. If you need more than that, attend my presentation at UCLA April 21. Porcelainophelia 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)— Porcelainophelia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm an eroge fan, and this activity is featured in the darker selections of the genre. Article is sourced. Google provides a large number of links. Entry proves useful for anyone seeking detailed information in the matter. Nargrakhan 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Meets all relevant policies and standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 7 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donkey_punch_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1136112513"