Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (5th nomination)
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
— User:Dhartung, 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CENSOR||WP:HEY||WP:RS (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)