Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Donkey punch


 * 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: delete. Per discussion with page creator, edit history has been merged into Sexual slang, with Donkey punch now redirecting there. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Donkey punch
This entry is a listing of any mention of the term donkey punch, rather than quotes of any significance. English Wikiquote has a great guideline for Quotability that currently only addresses entries on actual persons. If it had a section on topics, such as the subject of this VFD, I suspect it would advise against collections like this page. Many of these quotes are taken out of context, for it does not demonstrate that many of these 'quotes' are humour, published in low distribution books. As a result it gives the reader a not-neutral impression about the opinions held about this topic outside of shock-porn and shock-humour. The list contains dictionary definitions. The list of film reviews are a biased subset. The creator of this page, user:Cirt, has already compiled a list of citations at wikt:Citations:donkey punch, so there is no need to try to rescue this excellent resource which is better placed elsewhere. — John Vandenberg 08:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 09:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. John Vandenberg 08:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a list of obscure random quotes. Fine in Wiktionary, as a linguistic corpus, but out of scope here. --Jayen466 13:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and Jayen466. ~ UDScott 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quotability actually does address entries on subjects, noting that a narrow or obscure subject can be included if there are highly notable quotes on that subject. That is not the case here, these quotes being universally non-notable. BD2412 T 14:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an aside, my thanks to for calling my research efforts at wikt:Citations:donkey punch an "excellent resource" &mdash; I really appreciate that very much! The  phenomenon is quite notable, so much so that it was kept not once but five (5) times at Articles for Deletion on English Wikipedia: February 2005, February 2006, April 2006, October 2006, April 2007. The donkey punch page here on Wikiquote does contain noteworthy quotes, including from publications such as  and :
 * The donkey punch is one of the most unique euphemisms of our time. It falls into the class of theoretical euphemisms that are infrequent, impractical, and violent. The almost purely theoretical nature of the donkey punch makes it one of the most informative euphemisms about contemporary American society.
 * Put succinctly, the question is this: How does a generation with absolute knowledge of felching, donkey punching, and the dirty sanchez maintain healthy sex lives?
 * 1) The topic is notable.
 * 2) The page is an excellent resource.
 * 3) The page contains noteworthy quotes.
 * For these reasons, the page donkey punch should be kept on Wikiquote. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the topic is notable, at least by Wikipedia standards. However, there are many things which meet Wikipedia's notability criteria that are too narrow to justify quotation pages. Mink Cove, Nova Scotia; Victorian Railways R class, Haplochromis. There might be a handful of quotes to be assembled on each of these topics, but I doubt there are any notable quotes, and if there are they can almost certainly be fit into Canada, Trains and Fish. I would not object to merging the few notable quotes in this article (the 40-Year-Old Virgin quote, possibly some of the book quotes) into a broader sexual slang article. BD2412 T 18:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which other ones would you suggest to merge? -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have any other articles on these topics. Campaign for "santorum" neologism comes close, but it stands on its own as a page because of its intersection of politics with the linguistic aspect of the issue. However, there are many equivalent terms (dirty sanchez, bukkake) which will be the subject of a notable quote or two. Actually, the 40-Year Old Virgin quote is itself basically a laundry list of these, rather than being about any one of them. Bring all those quotes together on a single page and redirect the individual terms to it. BD2412 T 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have any other articles on these topics. Campaign for "santorum" neologism comes close, but it stands on its own as a page because of its intersection of politics with the linguistic aspect of the issue. However, there are many equivalent terms (dirty sanchez, bukkake) which will be the subject of a notable quote or two. Actually, the 40-Year Old Virgin quote is itself basically a laundry list of these, rather than being about any one of them. Bring all those quotes together on a single page and redirect the individual terms to it. BD2412 T 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep — though I find the article, like many of the others created by Cirt, extremely distasteful and hostile to many of the norms of human decency which I believe he regularly misuses and abuses, I choose to defend the rights of OTHERS, even my ADVERSARIES on MANY things, to present what they wish to here, so long as it is NOT explicitly forbidden from the Wikimedia projects, as some things properly ARE out of prudent consideration of legal complicatons. Even if I have no wish to present such things, or to actually have such things prominently presented, and even if I find the BLATANT hypocrisy of some in many regards astounding, and their apparent interests and obsessions with MUCH of the foulest behavior of other human beings to be extremely deplorable and disgusting, I do NOT seek to FORBID or CENSOR anything without clear NEED to do so, and hold their rights to present information in ways that others might not welcome to be fully as sacred as my own and others of far more ethical and ethereal interests to present what we wish — (which Cirt has often OPPOSED and SUPPRESSED in various improper ways). I DO intend to say MUCH more on such matters here and ELSEWHERE in coming months, in both essays and even a few SATIRES where I am not constrained to speaking in my usualy quite tedious and "overly" precise and accurate manner — but have not the time to do much more of that today. I fully expect that whatever technicalities might actually exist by which this could be deleted in accordance to existing policies to be cleverly and sufficiently addressed by Cirt, who I can concede is often quite clever, though neither he or the technicalities he might regularly use to SUPPRESS or OBSCURE and DESECRATE what is GOOD and FAIR in others to be anything close to wise. I actually do NOT bewail the ability of such people to speak as they will, and present to others whatever facts or fictions they will — but I DO sorrow at the fact that so many people allow them to so extensively control and inhibit how much other FAR wiser and fairer presences can be heard or present themselves. (I have here spoken of Cirt as a "he", as others seem to do so without objection, though I myself have done little investigation on the matter, and am open to any corrections if I am wrong.) ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Kalki, this is far and away the funniest keep vote I have ever read. BD2412 T 18:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I do not always make it so OBVIOUS as I have recently begun to do, my aim is OFTEN to AMUSE, as well as INSTRUCT. So it goes… Answer to Life.png Caput mortuum.svgSwirlyclock.pngSahasrara.svg ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: More info about the author and book quoted above, who describes the donkey punch phenomenon as, "one of the most unique euphemisms of our time": "Jordan Tate is an Assistant Professor of Art at the University of Cincinnati. Tate, a Fulbright Fellow (2008-2009), has a Bachelor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies from Miami University and a Master of Fine Arts in Photography from Indiana University. Tate is the author of the recently published "The Contemporary Dictionary of Sexual Euphemisms" from St. Martin's Press (2007); his work is currently held in collections nationwide, including the Museum of Contemporary Photography and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston." -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated here, I believe this link does more harm than good for your argument. This seems to me to bolster the argument that this person is not sufficiently notable to be quoted here. I would hardly call an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati who has his book in a small museum in Houston to be someone notable enough to be included here. ~ UDScott 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's also a, you forgot that part. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This extremely narrow theme seems to be some sort of bibliographic appendix to a corresponding Wikipedia article, or lexicographic reference work, rather than a collection of memorably quotable statements. I do not believe this exercise in trawling for every use or mention of the concept has yielded anything with quotability. My notion of what is "quoteworthy" for a compendium of quotations is distinctly different from Cirt's apparent notion of what is "noteworthy" for documenting something, or opinions about something, and is entirely different from Kalki's notion of a right to present information. I would say the probability of any of this appearing in a future edition of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is exactly zero; but others may consider that irrelevant. These are differences of opinion about the purpose of a compendium of quotations such as ours. Regarding Kalki's opinion that we ought not delete anything which is not expressly forbidden, I would suggest that we are expressly permitted to exercise editorial judgment subject to community consensus. More bad ideas are possible than can ever be enumerated in technical guidelines. ~ Ningauble 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully support the PROPER means of consensus determination of deleting SOME things which are not expressly forbidden, even if I would prefer they not be — IF they are given proper TESTS of such consensus on the particular matters — but NOT of devising such rules or policies CONTRARY to the very ESSENCE of a wiki — by which MUCH is presumed FORBIDDEN if it is not EXPRESSLY PERMITTED. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The discussion on the talk page about he illusration makes clear that there is trolling going on.--Peter cohen 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that MUCH of Cirt's activity seems to have the character of trolling, taunting or harassment of others — especially those whose views do not coincide with his — even more those who in some ways are vulnerable to distortions and misrepresentations which can result in punishments and constraints upon them. I am actually somewhat relieved that more of his actual character is being indicated in recent months in such ways as permit a more thorough review of what I consider past harassments, distortions and slanders. That all said, despite my displeasure with the actual creation of such an article here, I am inclined to permit it to remain, though the formatting diverges from the norm here. I honestly would not be greatly disappointed to see the article removed, but I believe it is a case where people are actually reacting with some levels of community consensus on a COMMON SENSE of disgust at such emphasis on the subject, rather than feeling a foolish NEED for LAME pre-emptive rules against certain TYPES of quotes — which usually or OFTEN forbids or inhibits FAR more good work than dubious or atrocious forms of it. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kalki, the first half of this paragraph is entirely unnecessary to the conversation. Will you learn to avoid directing invective against others? BD2412 T 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A person made a comment that because of a discussion related to this page it was "clear that there is trolling going on." In the start of my statement, I indicated my agreement with that observation, and indicated some of my reasons for agreement. If by identifying whom I thought to be doing the trolling is considered "improper personal specificity" in a statement, well I hope my honesty can be pardoned. I tend to bring as much of my awareness of many related matters as possible to nearly any issue, and am not inclined to "compartmentalize" in ways that might be convenient to those in more accustomed to "tunnel vision" that ignores much that continues to affect me and others, far more than some wish to acknowledge. I do believe that I have been unjustly harassed, constrained and treated as someone to target for abuses by Cirt to what I consider an extraordinarily degree for a few years now, and though it might be inconvenient to many, I am not inclined to ignore that fact, or be silent about it when I discuss my feelings and opinions about many issues that arise here related to his actions. I do recognize that there are many complexities at work here, far BEYOND my personal concerns, and yet I am NOT inclined to silently permit things to be oversimplified or swept away as many often are. I am actually supporting Cirt in this matter despite a great disparity in disposition with him on many things, but am attempting to explain and indicate some reservations I have in such support. I would NOT have created such an article myself, but neither would I exclude it simply because it is not one I would like to have here. I have long embraced the assertion of Evelyn Beatrice Hall who attempting to sum up the attitude of Voltaire declared: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Despite having little interest in the article, and having just glanced at it's contents, enough to find it rather appalling, I can agree with him the article should not be removed, though my reasons are based on far more general principles, than those narrow particulars he attempts to cite to justify its preservation. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Actually on a bit further reflection, I actually am PROPERLY "compartmentalizing" my concerns relevant to this issue, and ignoring many of my own personal feelings regarding OTHER things, but I have simply declined to pretend to not have very broad and diverse emotional concerns about MANY things here that cannot be "pigeonholed" in ways entirely convenient to others, and do sometimes let that show. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I believe that BD2412 was trying to make is that you seem to have trouble staying on topic - the issues you have had and may continue to have with Cirt have no place in this particular discussion about whether or not a particular page should remain. Please confine such statements to other places where they are more appropriate. ~ UDScott 14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not contest that the phrase is notable, though Cirt's own list of definitions on Wiktionary suggests some variation in what exactly the phrase means. Nor am I proposing censorship.  However, it is clear that the standard of quotations is too low to make it a viable page, and I cannot find any better ones.--Collingwood 12:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)