Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey show (2nd 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 was   Keep Unanimous, Non-admin close   Chzz  ►  00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Donkey show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 May 19. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand: As it is the article is pitiful, but Donkey Show's is a real term that is used fairly regurally and I feel it deserves a proper Wikipedia article. --Deathawk (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you aren't vain – ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regent  ─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several RS exist and are cited in the article with proper quotations, which show that the topic has generated substantial coverage and interest for the outside world. As such, it is a notable topic, and it is well within WP:GNG. There are no reasons to think that the article meets WP:NOT, so deletion is not a proper option. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep See the DRV for rationale, meets all wikipedia policies and guidelines based on ability to reference with reliable sources riffic (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Impossibly weak keep—I'm not convinced that the (sordid) subject is notable, but it makes a decent enough pretence at it that it shouldn't be deleted immediately. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regent  ─╢ 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the standards of notability have nothing to do with having an editor convinced that a subject is notable, but rather that a subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. riffic (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a hint – badgering people who are arguing for the same result as you is a)useless, b)dull and c)in no way endearing. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * just a hint, I don't care. riffic (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, your edit summary was (marginally) more polite and illuminating than the accompanying content. In response: this is not mainspace, and I do not have a problem with policy. I was simply surprised to !vote "delete" in a discussion and be heckled by someone who agreed with my position. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah, Keep for sure!. The Donkey Show has a cultural resonance that bridges generations.  As the "Sexy Stud" proclaimed in Clerks II, "Kelly can be a guy's name too... shheah!!!"  Gattosby (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Gattosby (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can people come to article that I have rewritten. The history section is being removed as "trivia" and after being restored, a quote from the Godfather was removed as being "unsourced" despite the source clearly there. Bring your own opinions to the talk page to develop consensus for removal or inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As DGG said in the DRV it does not matter whether or not donkey shows are a real phenomenon, when there are WP:RS that use the term. Since there are WP:RS that use the term I regard this as an obvious keep.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sometimes, despite my love for Wikipedia, I completely hate Wikipedia. This is one of those times. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable urban legend, important in why US people decide to visit Mexico, appears both in a Godfather book and in a Kevin Smith film (which means that it has been famous in US pop culture for years, it's not a barely famous trivia item that gets forgotten in a few weeks), good secondary references (I added one more). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (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.