Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (fourth 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Punch

This article is nothing but a magnet for vandals (of all stripes). The article was gutted by Jimbo Wales himself, and removed of all non-sourced items. I believe that it is near impossible to actually source sexual slang like "Donkey Punch" except through cultural references, which Jimbo calls original research.

This is the fourth nomination for this article, and this time I agree that it should be Deleted. Linnwood 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this article has been significantly rewritten since a lot of the below recommendations were made. I request that the closing admin note the timestamps on the "votes" below, and the times that sourcing edits were made to fully understand this AfD discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm going to have to side with keeping this one IF it can be cleaned up and monitored well. The article Dirty Sanchez is about another sexual slang, which should honestly be used as an example, as it is a clean, sourced and well maintained page. Wildthing61476 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Delete After further review, the ruling on the AfD is overturned, honestly I'm now not sure if this can be cleaned up to a point where it can be a viable article. Wildthing61476 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment By the same standard that is being used for Donkey Punch, Dirty Sanchez should be removed as well. — Linnwood 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Since Jimbo pwn3d this article and pruned it to what is formally verifiable from reliable sources, it turns out that it pretty much isn't verifiable from reliable sources, which is what a lot of people have said at previous AfDs. I'm sure this will find a place on Uncyclopaedia or some other project. Guy 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per JzG's above comments and Jimbo's smackdown on the article's talk page. Wickethewok 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And lo, it is written that the valiant knight Jimbo did slayeth the crappy article. And there was much rejoicing. (Yay.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 67,100 Ghits for ""Donkey Punch" sexual" ([1]) and we can't source this? Howard Stern has referenced it ([2]), as have episodes of South Park (without defining it) and CSI. And it's apparently been written about in the San Francisco Bay Guardian ([3]). Come on, this is clearly verifiable. --Hyperbole 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, but all of those things you cited, or similar ones, were in the aricle. Jimbo calls them original research. — Linnwood 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Jimbo cautions against name-dropping the TV shows without something (a transcript, etc.) to prove they mentioned the practice; I suspect that can be done. He also suggests that we should find newspaper or magazine articles to verify the practice, and we can verify that Andrea Nemerson of the SFBG has written about the practice several times: [4]. I also found a reference at the Vue Weekly, an independent Edmonton paper: [5]. At any rate, it doesn't seem that deletion is the correct remedy for this article being, as Jimbo says, "terrible." We can verify this with sources that are not UrbanDictionary. --Hyperbole 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Neither SF Bay Guardian nor Vue Weekly were one of the false sources that Jimbo struck out, as they were never in the article before. They seem to be new sources found by Hyperbole. hateless 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Once again we have the error of pointing to a Google search as if it constitutes research, rather than reading what the Google search turns up. Actually reading the first SFBG article listed what we find that this journalist has actually written is "Honey, get over it. There's no such thing as a 'donkey punch'.". In other articles, xe writes that this is "an imaginary icky sex act". Similarly, upon actually reading the Vue Weekly article one discovers a set of reader-contributed slang terms, which doesn't even include "donkey punch". It merely mentions a donkey punch, without any explanation of what it is. There's no evidence that the list of reader contributions has been fact checked, and as a potential source the article is on the same level as Urban Dictionary — i.e. it's not a source at all. Uncle G 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I improved the article and took the position that what Nemerson said about it was notable, not what was reported in the letter. Since there's a similar statement by Dan Savage, they work nicely together. --Dhartung | Talk 13:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The central tenet of the AfD nom, that any notability for the term is inherently unverifiable, in my opinion has yet to be proven. Jimbo's comments were for the article as written (then), not the topic in general. That Hyperbole seems to have found a perfectly fine reference for the term (from Nemerson) solidifies my opinion. hateless 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest actually reading the sources that you declare to be "perfectly fine". They aren't. In fact, they clearly state outright that this sex act does not exist. Uncle G 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You've missed the point, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Whether or not this act is ever practiced is largely irrelevent. Notability is derived from the use of the term as a cultural reference. The fact that so many sources mention the term (especially since they mention it without feeling the need to provide an actual definition) is in itself ample evidence that it is well known in popular culture. Badgerpatrol 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Evidence that something is well known in popular culture is some source saying that. Counting mentions of a term and deducing (a) that the sexual act that is the subject of this article is therefore well known, and (b) that that sexual act is what those people are even referring to in the first place (rather than, say, the act of punching a donkey, or perhaps a cocktail) is original research. Please stop trying to build this article from vapour and "cultural references" (which is apparently synonymous with "people naming various things Donkey Punch and characters in works of television fiction talking about donkey punches"). That bad approach to article construction is what has got us here in the first place. Dhartung is setting a good example to follow. Uncle G 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • "the act of punching a donkey"? Sheesh. I am well aware of what a primary source is and what a secondary source is, and I have stated repeatedly the need for better sourcing of this and almost all other Wikipedia articles. My comment was aimed at your contention that because the act may not exist it somehow should not be in here, ignoring the fact that the notability of the term is derived from its propagation as a meme, not from its existence per se. Vampires do not exist- we still have an article. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Uncle G is right. To cite an example, consider The Burning of the School, a song that's part of playground culture in the US and UK. That article is referenced, not because there are lots of "references" to the song it TV shows and whatnot, but because someone actually did some research and wrote books documenting the folklore of children. Those books are cited in the article, and they're what makes the topic verifiable, and not original research. When someone publishes a book in which they chronicle joke sex moves as a cultural phenomenon, and they talk about the Donkey Punch in that book, which they'd better if their book is any good, then we'll have something to work with. Surely you can see the difference between that and a Southpark episode in which Cartman makes a Donkey Punch joke. The book may cite the Southpark episode as an example; it's our job to find and cite the book. Primary source --> secondary source --> encyclopedia! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's perfectly fine as a documented hoax, which we do cover in WP per WP:HOAX. hateless 17:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep relevant slang. ReverendG 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Hateless, and my own fuller explanation on the article's talk page. Badgerpatrol 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Jimbo destroyed the article. Right now it is worthless crap that should be speedily deleted. Anomo 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kinda torn on this one, as the article, as stands, is worthless, and lacking any sourced additions has no hope of being worth anything. I have heard the term many times, but in several hundred edits, no reliable sources were found? Strikes me as having no hope of ever being more than a dicdef, thus I lean to delete. Resolute 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A slang term for some specific business transactions by one company - who needs this? WP:WINAD. Sandstein 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why exactly, I don't know, but I attempted to improve the article according to Jimbo's stated standards. I don't know how it can be prevented from future disimprovement, though. I think there's slightly more here than a dicdef, mainly because of Enron and, to her eternally mirrored chagrin no doubt, Sen. Cantwell. --Dhartung | Talk 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Relevant cultural slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhermann (talk • contribs)
• Delete unless non-trivial coverage in reliable sources can be found, with no prejudice against recreation if such sources are found at some future time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Keep - changing my recommendation, because non-trivial coverage in reliable sources was found. Good job, Dhartung, and good job Hawai'i AIDS Education and Training Center. Wow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Should be in list of sex moves or some such - not enough for an article - same with Enron stuff - put it on one of th enron pages. --Trödel 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reaffirm delete, even the new references to books ISBN 0312310846 & ISBN 1400050332 contain disclaimers that either the book is full of irony, or that it is a completly made up. --Trödel 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    Is that a second vote item of discussion, or a comment? If the latter, it might be prudent to remove the bold and strike the word above so as to avoid confusion, but it's up to you. Badgerpatrol 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    Don't worry, the first one wasn't a vote either. The closing admin knows better than to close the discussion by counting "votes", because AfD isn't a vote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed, but removed the bold to be clear. I am reaffirming my opinion after viewing the new text with its alleged "references" which include a book that claims that it made up the sex move to fill space, and the other saying the entire book is not to be taken seriously and is full of irony; thus, it still isn't well refernced, nor do I think it can be. --Trödel 03:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    I was more impressed with the AIDS center in Hawaii. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    It is a vote - but simply one in which a simple majority (or indeed a supermajority) need not carry the motion. Anyone who presents a possible resolution or expresses their will is "voting". There is in any case a difference between "a vote" (as a collective noun) and "a vote" singular. In the case above, I was obviously referring to the latter. Badgerpatrol 04:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    And I was simply repeating the usual mantra that effectively says "let's not refer to these as "votes", as much as we can avoid it, because we don't want to reinforce the impression that these discussions should be thought of as votes." In the sense that a "vote" is nothing more than a formal expression of will, these recommendations we're making are "votes", but it's really better not to call them that, IMO. The word way too easily brings a whole raft of expectations with it that we'd like to avoid. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    I think the average editor is likely to be clever enough to distinguish between a vote (which this is) and a majority vote (which this is not). It is perfectly reasonable (and parsimonious) to refer to an individual expression of opinion here (k, d, merge, whatever) as a vote. Badgerpatrol 18:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

    "Shout people down"? I thought I was very polite and calm about it? What does one have to do to suggest a different way of speaking around here and not be thought a belligerent asshole? I'm not trying to have an argument with you, nor to belittle "the average editor". I sincerely believe there are good reasons for choosing words carefully - I've seen way too many people treat these discussions as majority votes to think that nobody makes that mistake, or that we needn't be vigilant about guarding against that misperception. But honestly, "shout people down"? I apologize for offending your sensibilities, and beg your forgiveness for any inadvertent offense I caused. I shall continue to refer to my recommendations in AfDs as "recommendations", and I promise I won't bother you about it again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteNon-notable nonexistant sex act.Edison 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What other things should be CENSORED hmmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.221.23 (talk • contribs)

  Any original research hasn't got a place in Wikipedia. Comparing that to censorship is like saying it's censorship not to print your high school term paper in the local newspaper, or the minutes of a Senate subcommittee meeting in MAD Magazine. Some material belongs in some venues and not in others. Censorship, indeed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a difference between verifying this is a real sex act and verifying this is a notable joke. The article has sources now, including books describing the act and columnists talking about it (much better than before, when all we had was a long obnoxious list of pop culture references.) It seems that the real issue is whether or not those sources are good enough the establish the encyclopedic value of the article. If not, it implies sufficient sources are unlikely to be found at all, considering this is the best anyone's been able to do. Either way, this has implications for many other articles we have about even less notable fake sex acts and internet urban legends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into some kind of list of sex acts. That way Wikipedia covers it, but doesn't need to fill up an entire article with it. --Masamage 00:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to remove it. Jcgarcow 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "The move is not strictly defined or well-documented" - then it doesn't need an article. Come back when it's verifiable. wikipediatrix 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't actually matter whether this vile act has occurred even once. The fact is that it is a rather sordid part of popular culture. I'd say that well-known sex columnists are verifiably addressing it makes it notable within the context of weird sexual things, which we apparently do write about here. I'm not sure we should, but that's a meta-issue that should be addressed separately from an instance. In short there is verifiable and notable information about this urban myth. Never having occurred doesn't make it unnotable: witness vanishing hitchhiker and sewer alligator. Derex 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• sigh. Keep, as per Derex. Yuck, but keep. DS 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable expression (and all except one of the sources on the article barring the Enron links do not meet WP:RS) Glen 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: the act may not be performed in real life, but it exists as a rumour/urban legend. The statements are sourced, and the Enron factoid is actually interesting. Why is this being nominated for deletion at all? Ultra Megatron 07:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My roomate recently asked what this was, I told him to look online, its all jokes and porn, without the wikipedia there would be no good information, this article is useful and necessary. Solidusspriggan 07:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "This commonly mentioned act does not exist in real life" is useful information, and the use in the Enron scandal makes the term notable outside of its narrow field. Zocky | picture popups 14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, it is notably referenced in pop culture. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 9 October 2006
• Keep this is a duh keep... sorry Jimbo... this is a very widely reported on imaginary sex act. We can verify its use in popular culture, we can verify that when people like Howard Stern refer to a Donkey Punch that he is indeed talking about this particular description of a sex act. I see no valid reason for this deletion.  ALKIVAR™ 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Additional source: probably NSFW. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per many of the above. --Myles Long 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is widely known imaginary sex act in pop culture. It has been mentioned many times by various tv and radio personalities, and this allows people to verify what is being talked about. Trav75 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Derex, with special thanks to the Hawai'i AIDS Education and Training Center. Maxamegalon2000 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ... I was amazed to see that this had survived three AfDs and is up for a fourth. See you all when it comes up for a fifth time. *rolls eyes* JubalHarshaw 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The only thing that is absurd is this being nominated for deletion a fourth time. RFerreira 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, relevant slang. bbx 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since other sexual acts and positions are here as well, maybe needs some clean-up though, made into a better article. 192.76.54.23 15:31, 11 October 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.