Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (2nd nomination)

Donkey punch

A made-up sex move which has, apparently, never been recorded. Cited authorities include Urban Dictionary (so it must be true, then). Most discussions in anything even approaching a reliable source seem to restrict themselves to saying it's unlikely. The article as written seems to be little more than an excuse to link to articles like dildo - I don't think even Roger's Profanisaurus would include this. I reckon it's complete bollocks from start to finish, although it got kept here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, extensive usage in common parlance[1], and precedent for keepage per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Teabagging. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also see previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Come on, the Tony Danza Variation? This is sheer UrbanDictionary nonsense and has no place in an encyclopedia. StarryEyes 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Caveat:I am not thrilled with the idea of putting my name in support next to anything related to donkey punching. However, I must vote my wikiconscience here for a few reasons. First of all, the teabagging precedent (God, am I citing something called the teabagging precedent?) and the previous AfD show a developing consensus on such topics. Secondly, the article itself has developed beyond that of a dicdef (if the article stunk, I would probably vote for transwikification). Tertiarily, it is not a neologism or bull shit, as I have heard this term since at least 1997. So, yea, save the donkey punch (note to StarryEyes: I do agree that anything containing the words Tony Danza Variation is highly suspect). Youngamerican 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Current status as an urban legend is more likely than not due to a lack of verifiable sources...it would not surprise me to see reports of it in documented abusive relationships. Also, the teabagging precedent, however silly it might sound, is indeed important here. - CorbinSimpson 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• So we should keep it because it is not verifiable from reliable sources? That's an interesting interpretation of Wiki policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the implied causality. I meant that despite having a lack of verified sources, we should still keep it. Much bigger and more important articles are unverified as well, which in my mind is a good precedent for allowing common knowledge without verification to remain in the encyclopedia. - CorbinSimpson 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep —Brim 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although the act itself may be fictitious, this term has been in usage for quite a while. As part of the common vernacular, I'd say that it deserves a place in Wikipedia. — [anonymous] 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified Keep If it doesn't get cleaned up and the profanity and rampant misogyny (of the article, the concept of the act itself seems hopelessly woman-hostile), it should be deleted. If it's maintained better, well...keep it. At the moment, it's nonsense, but the term is one people refer to and wonder about, and if we can get this anecdotal, ridiculous tone out of the article (the quotes at the beginning, the warning about possible castration), it's worthwhile. Ugh. --4.235.135.81 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been around for a year and a half. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)