That was a neat rhetorical sleight of hand, wasn't it?  I'm not trying to base the contents of an article on what "we all know"; I'm calling you out on a disingenuous analogy.  If you really think there's no more coverage of fascism or of rape in scholarly sources than there is of donkey punches, I will cheerfully provide you with the titles of fifty published books on each.  There's a difference between basing encyclopedia content on what "we all know", and using what "we all know" to make a point in a conversation.  I hope you can see that.  What I'm pointing out is that fascism and rape are clearly extremely citeable, whereas donkey punch isn't.  With proper sourcing, the donkey punch article will not be deleted, no matter how much people hate it.  Unless someone is deleting properly sourced articles based on distaste, your analogy goes nowhere.  As for myself, I've argued for deleting articles I like a lot, based on the fact that no verifiable sources could be found for their contents, so don't tell me why I'm "picking on" this article.  I actually take the position I do because I really like WP:NOR. -