Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Donkey punch
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notable term with FOURTY-THREE-THOUSAND google matches  and enormous potential for expansion far beyond a dictdef.  GRider\talk 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for the same reason Mr.Sidaway gave CiaraBeth 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete dictdef, maybe a weak transwiki to wiktionary; I see no potential for expansion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a dicdef. Zzyzx11 01:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a very well-known phrase/concept, and seems much more appropriate to Wikipedia than to Wiktionary to me.  The information there is already useful.  In fact, it was one of the first articles on Wikipedia that I was impressed by, simply because (perhaps needless to say) few of those Google results have very solid information.  The history of the phrase and the biological facts related to it give the article potential for expansion.  It is also worth mentioning that this is not a new phrase.  Donkey punches can be seen in films from the 1970s.  --LostLeviathan 03:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Wolfman 03:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is much more than a simple definition. &#8212; J3ff 05:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial, dictionary definition. Megan1967 06:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sick it may be, but it is more than a dicdef.  HowardB 07:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. That was surprisingly informative. Meelar (talk) 08:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apart from the definition, this seems more like speculation than information. Kappa 09:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Childish, trivial, dicdef. Trilobite (Talk) 10:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is informative, even if it's on a subject that many people do not want to be informed on. But it has a place in Wikipedia, in the appropriate categories. Concur with Leviathan. Radiant! 11:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.  I wish we could get rid of this as a dicdef, but it isn't.  It is unencyclopedic, however.   I have a difficult time believing that people intent on making Wikipedia the online Encyclopedia of Sex Practices aren't trolling or trying to discredit the project.  Give me Digimon-cruft over sex-cruft like this.  --BM 16:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting how strong people's opinions are about this; in any event, it is properly noted as being a possible urban legend and I can see no precedent or guideline that would call for deletion, as it does seem a bit broad for a dicdef. HyperZonktalk 16:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, proper article. Grue 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if wikipedia is not a jargon guide, you need to delete about half of the wikipedia.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like they're doing a terrific job of that this week.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 18:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it is probably only about 20 percent. --BM 22:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and, wow, that's sick. BenSamples 05:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY STRONG DONKEY KEEP. Congratulations BM for openly pronouncing your bias towards "Digimon-cruft" over "sex-cruft".  How cute.  There is no doubt that people will refer to Wikipedia for this term.  Once again, welcome to puritan deletionism.   &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 18:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep &mdash; Linnwood 20:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * THE STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE - needs more info though! --Smooth Henry 21:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found precedent: Votes_for_deletion/Teabagging --Smooth Henry 21:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef - or intrawiki to Wiktionary Trödel| talk 22:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is, unfortunately, pretty well known and notable. Gamaliel 22:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Who would think of deleting an article on the infamous donkey punch?Everyking 06:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, keep, however, does anyone really want to know this? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, hmmm, is there an article on the Clinton lip bite? I'm unfamiliar with what the slang terms might be.  I guess that's what I missed, not being a frat boy.--Silverback 17:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologisms and slang should be presented very well and be clearly encyclopedic.  This one may or may not be an urban legend, and has no convincing etymology.  The topic might be 'notable' enough to eventually have its own article, but this one isn't it, and doesn't look fixable.  Ditto for the other two "sex moves" linked at the end of the article.  Delete and merge with an overview such as sexual slang.  +sj  +  00:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * slang-collections like sexual slang should probably be transwikied to wiktionary, in any case...
 * Keep. I'm fed up with the attempts to "sanitize" Wikipedia so that it's only useful to schoolchildren.  RickK 00:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-written and obviously researched article that is relevant. I also agree with RickK. Yalbik 01:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As RickK said. --Carnildo 05:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand why anyone would consider this unencyclopedic.  Eric Herboso  22:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Well-written and informative article. No reason to get rid of it. If nothing else, "Donkey Punch" should be in Wikipedia because people use it.  DavidMendoza 22:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jonathunder 22:32, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly legitimate article. Not a dictdef. "Not worksafe" is not a valid reason for deletion.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I hope people voting to keep this realize that far from being a mere "sex move", this is a form of extreme abuse that potentially could seriously harm the female partner.   It is NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST for the woman.   The so-called move probably does not really exist except as a kind of sick Howard Stern-type joke.   It is far too dangerous.    Someone reading this article is going to think that it is OK to try it and someonr else is going to get seriously injured, and it might well be Wikipedia's fault.  People have such a chip on their shoulders about censorship, prudishness, etc, that they lose all sense of responsibility. --BM 02:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a warning to the entry in bold type. Does this fix this particular concern?  Eric Herboso  02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with BM about the undesirability of practicing this "move", but I disagree strongly about applying self-censorship in encyclopedia entries just because we don't want people trying what is described. I mean, where do we start and stop?  How about suicide, hari-kiri, mass murder, or Russian roulette. I am sure these are well written articles, but probably started out as brief descriptions of the activity.  Should they have been deleted because they represent undesirable social behaviour? I think not.  HowardB 15:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * BM is totally right! We lose so many people to Donkey Punches each year, I think it'll be on the cover of Time Magazine by the end of summer. Along that same line, I'd like to warn people about the Vietnam War. Far from being a mere event in history, it is NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST for a country to be invaded and used as a battleground. Same with Fencing. All sorts of paragraphs about the history of this urban legend, but not a single BM-approved warning about how dangerous and NOT PLEASURABLE IN THE LEAST it is for someone to get poked in the eye. That shit hurts, yo. HowardB, I think you and I have our work cut out for us. --Jscott 17:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your sarcastic non-sequitur notwithstanding, the fact remains that in this article we have a description as a real "sex move" something, which if it actually were performed, would very likely injure someone, and would be extreme abuse, not to mention criminal battery.  We are talking about the person on top punching his partner in the back of the head as hard as he can -- so hard that the anus or vagina muscles strongly contract.    And, apparently, Wikipedia editors think it is fine to describe this as a "sex move" and make jokes about "Tony Danza".  --BM 18:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disturbing, but notable. Carrp | Talk 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Interesting article - yes, a definition, but also explanation and description.  As are all encyclopedia entries. Kirkbroadhurst 23.52, 21 Feb 2005 (AEST)
 * Keep. It's puerile misogyny, but it's verifiable and notable puerile misogyny. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Christiaan 16:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It explains in a responsible way a phenomenon many will already have heard of in less responsible contexts.--Nectarflowed 21:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: when can we remove the deletion notice? --Smooth Henry 21:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * As nominator, as far as I'm concerned it can be lifted. This is a very strong keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sex cruft. JamesBurns 09:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.