Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (3rd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was keep (as per concensus). — FireFox • T [18:42, 12 April 2006]

Donkey punch
This is a very problematic page that violates WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:WINAD. Let me state that I am not at all motivated by any desire to censor Wikipedia. There are plenty of sex articles I would never dream of deleting, because they have been properly documented in psychiatric and medical literature. This is different. I'm nominating this because its existence clearly violates policy, and it is a very attractive target to vandals. I also don't like having what are supposed to be factual articles that are filled with speculation, fiction, and outright lies. A couple of days ago, this was added to the article:

"The most unique and hilarious variation, however, is the one where it is said that immediately upon being punched, the partner taking it up the ass contracts so forcefully, the active partner's penis is ejected three winks prior to ejaculation. At this critical juncture, a delicate BABY is also evacuated, and it immediately begins to eS the Dee of the repudiated partner to finish him off. If the baby is a good girl, she will swallow. Male babies never never nerver swallow. Good luck to everyone!"

I don't know what kind of person it takes to come up with this stuff, but I suspect it's not the kind of person we need to write articles. I've tried to edit out the fiction, but without any success. One user repeatedly puts back information that he really can't be bothered to provide sources for. Other editors have repeatedly removed the information, and it has been put back. One such piece of information is the idea that punching someone hard enough in the back will cause their rectum to prolapse and form a so-called "pink sock." I'm not a physician, but I know that simply being punched does not cause rectal prolapse. I'd like to see this article deleted, but perhaps it and its kind could be put on one page, perhaps titled sexual urban legends, to make it easier to monitor vandalism, to give all these terms context, and to limit the amount of trivial references to movies, cartoons, TV shows, and video games each one inevitably attracts. At any rate, I'm done with this article. Monitoring it and others like it is a thankless job, and no one seems to care anyway about whether it is factual or not. Comments directed at me personally during this discussion will not be answered on this page, and should instead be directed to my talk page where they will be promptly ignored. People crying "censorship!" will not be taken seriously. Brian G. Crawford 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep your laziness in not wanting to vandal patrol is not a reason to delete an article. A simple google shows the term is quite frequently used and as such BELONGS on wikipedia. Stop being lazy and verify the damn thing rather than spending the time to rant on AFD.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep indeed. WP:AFD is not a soapboax.  Vandalism is a problem in every facet of Wikipedia, and we already have tools to deal with it.  Deletion is not one of those tools.  Silensor 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is a very well-known phrase/concept, and is appropriate to Wikipedia. The vandalsim you quote is irrelevant to whether or not that article should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford has repeatedly attempted to blank and remove this article. &mdash; Linnwood 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

''Reopening debate to gather a wider concensus, seeing as I closed it too early the first time. — FireFox • T [21:46, 11 April 2006] ''


 * Keep. Consensus seems to already be established; if Brian isn't interested in watching the article, I'm sure others can take over. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI Brian G. Crawford has deleted his Wikipedia account over this matter. &mdash; Linnwood 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep, bad faith nom. Could do with more references though. Badgerpatrol 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable sexual UL. Haikupoet 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Cleveland steamer, Dirty sanchez, et al into Invented extreme sex acts or something of the sort. Since nobody can find any documentation for these acts being carried out (and people referring to them with these phrases) anytime before they became a popular internet meme, it's about time we started treating them not as legitimate phrases that any sexual researcher would use, but as the toilet humor they were intended to be.GT 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; I'm not convinced that this should have been re-nominated so soon (arguably a bad faith nomination), so currently support the previous decision. Fourohfour 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, this is truely ridiculous. It's a common term, and one of the many reasons people love wikipedia. Themindset 17:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.