Deletion of Donkey punch (5th nomination)

Comment: but would be delighted if someone could come up with valid grounds for deletion. Unfortunately it ''is'' a genuine sexual practice - see this http://www.somethingawful.com/d/horrors-of-porn/donkey-punch.php NON WORK SAFE LINK for more than you ever wanted to know about it. Much as I would love to enforce  in this case, this article is sourceable and far more than a dicdef
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as I'm primarily responsible for the article in its current form (see history if you like). I'm not sure where this prejudice against what ''should'' be in an encyclopedia comes from as |Wikipedia is not censored. Certainly the fact that it's ''fake'' isn't something that has any bearing on its notability. I did a similar  on autocunnilingus but I'm letting that one go (after trimming there's only one ). But as sexual terminology goes, this one actually figured (in meta-slang form) in a national scandal and ''one of the sources is a US Senate page''. I don't know how often sexual slang, no matter how real, makes it to that lofty height. Call it stupid, call it ... irresponsible, but it's a "real" fake, and it's a notable fake at that. What Jimbo did was exactly right, he excluded the pointless wankery, er, original research from the article. It's the kind of article that attracts the "Howard Stern mentioned donkey punching on his show last night" additions. But we seem to have that under control now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR||WP:HEY||WP:RS)

Comment: For no other reason than that following four failed nominations for deletion, a fifth nomination, without more, should be foreclosed. Surely some kind of claim preclusion can attach to that kind of consensus. Indeed,  states speedy keeping is appropriate if "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it . . . . Examples of this include . . . making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)