Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (5th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:11, 26 July 2008

Goatse.cx

This article fails the reliable secondary sources guideline which is essential in determining notability for both the general notability and website guidelines. To expand, nearly every citation is to goatse itself - the few citations there are only talk about its sale, while the article itself goes into much more. The other citation or two which are also reliable aren't about Goatse at all, and thus trivial.

This is a contested prod notice also. Izno (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Further, nearly every nomination a cleanup has been promised, but not been delivered upon. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at how many times this article has been nominated for deletion. Everytime it has been kept. Why is it any different now? Here is a reliable reference to its use on the BBC. Note that the BBC don't tell the readers what Goatse it (because it's so notable) and instead they give a link to this Wikipedia article. Without this article how would people learn about Goatse? bsrboy (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because consensus can change. Also, please reply with valid reasons to keep the article. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. That's a blog, which similarly does not meet the requirements for WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from an editor of the BBC, who writes all the article, which you class as "reliable". The BBC wouldn't allow an article written about Goatse on the BBC, so he wrote about it on the blog section to tell people about it. Are you saying that what's written on that blog is incorrect? There is also a screenshot as proof that it was included and a video of the BBC news on youtube. bsrboy (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And blogs still aren't reliable. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that wasn't an article. It was a comment from the editor apologizing for letting a link to a "shock site" slip through. there is no possible way to construe that as some journalistic coverage of the subject. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- One thing to note: of the four prior AfDs, only the first, from 2006, was an actual 'keep.' The other three since were each withdrawn by the nominator (two of them were nominations by the same person actually). krimpet✽ 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources are primary, unreliable, or trivial (like the Hands of God one), and not really about Goatse itself. It's an, um, rather widespread internet meme. Just look into Encyclopedia Dramatica, there are a hole lot of Goatse references; best I could find was this, but it's auf Deutsch and is still only a trivial mention of Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Several of the sources being dug up just tie back to the Wikipedia page (like the Google Books link Yngvarr dug up), and the Wired links are only sort of about Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just going to call on WP:IAR as this is a valid internet phenomena, and also point out [1]. Sorry, I'm not going to argue pedantically about this one (oh that's just a blog, it's not reliable), how about things like [2] [3] or [4], all of which are considered notable enough publications. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book mention is a trivial mention - it isn't about Goatse, but about attack sites in general from the preview that I could tell. Going by all the nominations for AfD that Encyclopedia Dramatica went through, a trivial mention isn't enough to establish notability. The ones on the sale of it further don't explain what Goatse is - they are similar in that they only trivially mention goatse.
  That said, I'm not sure what to say about the slashdot links. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As my !vote says, I am using WP:IAR for this, which means I am not using policy for my argument in this particular AFD, but rather on the sheer weight of the fact that, yes, in this case, popularity does equal notability. This isn't your garage band which meets every friday, nor is it the local paid band which plays every night down at the local pub, but a phenominia which has enough oblique references to qualify. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is a phenomena (having been goatsed once...) — That said, I was rejecting your list of citations, which were meant to support your main reason, which is difficult to argue against at best without sinking into WP:ILIKEIT or other deletion discussion fallacies (as will follow in the next sentence). I don't feel that IAR is really in legitimate usage here, as I don't really know that this article is an improvement to Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is very notable, and while it may not have 3rd party sources. It is notable because so many people know about it. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 21:24:41 21:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather contradictory. Here on Wikipedia, things are notable when they get coverage in third-party sources. I'm not seeing a lot here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the (everlasting) problems is this is part of a List of Internet phenomena, for which many of the sources will be shot down, as I say above, pedantically, because they're just blogs. In this case, I consider this notable enough even given the oblique references. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addendum to the otters, notability != popularity. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a strong Internet phenomenon. That's it's disgusting is not the issue here. JJL (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable part of internet culture. Towel401 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - JJL:And nowhere has anyone mentioned that it is disgusting — That it is a strong Internet phenomenon is not a legitimate reason to oppose per the reason right about your response.
Towel: Notability states that reliable sources need to be found to support that assertion. The few there are, as explained in the nomination, are not used in a method compliant with WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Towel401. notable/famous internet shock site. User529 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reliable secondary sources which support that assertion. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9ANHDwEss08 bsrboy (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A YouTube video is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why not? bsrboy (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because anyone can upload a YouTube video. See WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What does it matter who uploaded it. The source of the content of the video is reliable. bsrboy (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not per WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this article is worthy of inclusion. Outside of the internet, it isn't notable. It's also pornography, so unless there are articles for Meanspin, Tubgirl, and Harlequin Fetus, there's no reason for a Goatse article. ThomasOwens (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Goatse is far more popular than all of those outside of the internet. The London Olympics logo was outside of the internet. bsrboy (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an inclusionist I would like to add that I'm actually in favor of having articles on Tubgirl, Meatspin and Harlequin fetus, while hinting to WP:IAR. — Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 06:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note WP:WAX. Axl (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant but strong delete Compare this to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. That has 17 sources cited independent from the subject, ranging from non-reliable (the youtube video) to unimpeachable (Dibbell in wired). The subject is described (Again to varying degrees) in significant detail. Notability is satisfied. Goatse, on the other hang, contains one source that is both reliable and indpendent from the subject: a BBC mention noting that they were sorry they didn't pull an image link to goatse sooner. that isn't sufficient. None of this is about goatse being gross or bad or wrong. It just isn't covered by reliable, independent sources enough to satisfy WP:GNG. We can ignore all rules, but in order to do that we have to argue convincingly that keeping this page will improve the encyclopedia significantly. I'm not sure how it would, as little of the content of the page is compelling. >80% of it consists of a rundown of what the goatse website was/is in detail. The subject is not placed in a greater context (aside from the IPC section) and given current sourcing, doing so would require WP:OR. Sorry, this one doesn't meet WP:N. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from this being the fifth time Wikipedians will be voting to keep, I would like to make an additional note. The deletion notice states that Goatse.cx lacks notability (outside of the internet). For it's notability on the internet, please see the Google search results for Goatse (995.000) and Goatse.cx (52.500). Regarding the fact that it would only be notable online, not offline, I think you are missing the point of Wikipedia. First of all, there are many subjects on Wikipedia that are solely notable in a certain area of interest (f.i. Koiso Ryouhei) or in a certain geographic area (f.i. Moorfield House, Headingley). While these may not be of interest to everyone, there are many people who turn to Wikipedia for it's very broad range of articles on notable and less notable subjects. Which brings me to my second point. Even if you were to agree that it is solely relevant within the internet community (whatever that may be), it is still notable. Aside from the posted numbers of Google results, there are a significant amount of references 'in popular culture', which are also noted in the article itself in the (maybe not quite unquestioned) section with the same name. — Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The keeps have not been dependent upon the cleanups, but cleanup is a recommendation that may always be necessary--considering the nature of the subject. Many highly objectionable things are notable/ The principle remains NOT CENSORED. Though consensus can change, it has not changed on this basic principle when repeated tested, and I doubt it will. I'd suggest regarding further nominations as disruptive--the fact that the nom had previously tried to prod this is indicative. . I think we're ready for a SNOW KEEP on this one. DGG (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am sorry that Goatse.cx is notable, but it is. The article may need clean-up, but Wikipedia needs the article. —SlamDiego_←T 07:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly). I, too, am disgusted. However "Goatse" is a notable subject with many appropriate references. Several people above seem to be unaware of WP:WAX. Axl (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vital part of teh Internets Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 *'''Keep.'''  I am sorry that Goatse.cx is notable, but it is.  The article may need clean-up, but Wikipedia needs the article. —[[User:SlamDiego|SlamDiego]]<sub><font size="-2">[[User_talk:SlamDiego|&#8592;T]]</font></sub> 07:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' (reluctantly). I, too, am disgusted. However "Goatse" is a notable subject with many appropriate references. Several people above seem to be unaware of [[WP:WAX]]. [[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 08:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' Vital part of teh Internets [[User:Canadian Actor Expert|Canadian Actor Expert]] ([[User talk:Canadian Actor Expert|talk]]) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)