Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (3rd nomination)

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 keep. - KrakatoaKatie 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten[edit]

Sole assertion of notability, the XXXChurch reference, lacks secondary and tertiary sources. No Wikipedia:Reliable sources although flagged since April. Last AfD's keep outcome seems largely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, and "notable on Fark." MrZaius^talk 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) PS: Also note that the topic is covered at XXXChurch.com (not that that article couldn't use shoring up in terms of refs), and seems largely limited to the one captioned cat image.[reply]

Merge into B3ta, XXXChurch.com, or Domo-kun. Wl219 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into said articles. Agree completely with MrZaius - no notability.--daniel folsom —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
Merge (to B3ta for choice). The last AfD is one of the biggest collections of invalid reasons I've seen in a single discussion - my personal favourite is "Keep - I remember this". Special prize for the first person to use the word "Pokemon" in a keep argument on this AfD — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into said articles as per Danielfolsom. _{And since Meowth is a kitten, mreger there to. ;-) No, kidding kiddng.} -WarthogDemon 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No prize - I want a bona fide "Keep, this article is only half as long as Meowth — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Durn it. :P Well I can't do that since I'd be making a WP:POINT and make you violate WP:BEANS . . . and bottom line I hate this phrase. :P Still merge for me, oh well! -WarthogDemon 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment IMO WP:BEANS became void in this discussion the moment the sentence "Keep, because there's no reason not to" appeared — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added in the other, more recent afd from 2006 (also keep). It used an ellipsis in the title, hence is displaying at the end of the list at above-right. --Quiddity 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to b3ta). If still unreliably cited by the end. --Quiddity 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you Delete an article, God kills a kitten. Bearian 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember this, and it brings up an interesting point (I wonder if it's been discussed elsewhere): does notability fade over time? This survived 3 AfDs because, even a year ago, it was a popular meme. Now it's not so popular, it's getting a lot of "Megre" and "Delete". Does this mean the notability "left", or it wasn't truly notable to begin with? If it was then, it should be now. I'm keeping a neutral opinion because, while I like it and think it should stay, I'm just not sure how one sources it, or how the article can expand from here. Maybe a merge is proper, but to where? List_of_Internet_phenomena?--UsaSatsui 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More that it wasn't truly notable before. All assertions of notability in the last AfD were either completely unfounded or horribly misfounded, like "I remember it" or "notable on fark" - Take a modern admin back in time to 2005 to there's no way they'd have closed as keep. MrZaius^talk 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if it was notable a year ago, it is notable permanently. DGG (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". Its cute, but it belongs at urbandictionary Corpx 06:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to XXXChurch.com. Yes it's notable, but doesn't really need its very own article. If not merge, then very very weak keep. spazure (contribs) (review) 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Still noteable and will be forever, if we are going to just move the content to another page, why the hell move it at all? there is no point! Fosnez 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bar for notability is slightly lower for a point within another article than for an independent article. More importantly, it seems highly debatable that this was ever notable. I'm in DGG's camp that "once notable"="always notable" - For instance, you don't see me nominating the hundreds of articles for US congressmen that don't assert notability beyond their winning an election for that office. What's at issue here is that the initial AfD contained zero compelling arguments for notability and the article, after some 2 years, has never taken on secondary/tertiary sources to back up notability. Heck, it doesn't have any secondary or tertiary sources in the first place - that after being flagged for additional sources since April. MrZaius^talk 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Raul654 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Albert Cardona What differentiates the wikipedia from any other encyclopedia is the ability to record all sorts of information such as internet trends, that are unlikely to be ever recorded anywhere. Deleting this article is akin to deleting a piece of publicly-available history. As said above, no point in moving it either; that's what hyperlinks are for. Keeping pages small not only increases readability, also fosters it -i.e. long articles discourage reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertcardona2 (talk • contribs)

Keep Every time you delete this article, god kills a kitten. More seriously, it is without a doubt notable. Atropos 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that can be demonstrated in the article, great - the nom will gladly be withdrawn, but there's not anything in there yet to back it up. The primary source links about the XXXChurch derivative work are inadequate to back up notability. Barring that, there are doubts aplenty about the topic's notability. MrZaius^talk 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a very notable Internet phenom. All this needs is some cites to be up and running. Salvatore22 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I've only been able to find one that directly mentions the phrase (but curiously not the picture), but even it only makes cursory mention of it while focusing on the XXXChurch. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152159,00.html Given multiple reliable sources that dwell on the actual phenom, we'd be set. If not, the merge arguments make a lot more sense than preserving the article as is. MrZaius^talk 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources or evidence of notability. Try Uncyclopedia. --Coppertwig 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major newspaper has commented on this, I don't see how this is suitable if it has no sources. Phgao 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —MrZaius^talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (wiki-double jeopardy). If it was notable enough to survive (apparently several) AFD reviews, then the issue sounds like it has already been settled. To keep nominating an article for deletion, after it has already been deemed "Wiki-worthy" comes across at simply fishing to get the result you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldDee (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
- The Fifth Amendment does not apply to civil cases, Alex Trebek, or Wikipedia. Says so in the fine print. --UsaSatsui 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was only nominated once below, as is plainly implied by this page's name. Furthermore, multiple editors agree that that AfD was incorrectly carried out/incomplete without any solid arguments behind a Keep. MrZaius^talk 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were 2 previous afds: 1 in June 2005 and 2 in January 2006. (not that BaldDee's rationale is any more relevant, but there were two ;) --Quiddity 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that's what he was going on about with the ellipses. Very little weighty discussion in the '06 debate, but at least they didn't use "notable on fark" *grin* MrZaius^talk 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION. Am I understanding what happened correctly? There were two previous AfD's, in which some sort of discussion occurred; twice, an admin or admins looked at the discussion and deemed the subject notable (and therefore wiki-worthy) and closed the AfD, keeping the article; some editors disagreed with the result and/or the the sufficiency of the arguments in favor of sustaining the article and have re-nominated the article for deletion, hoping to get the result they would prefer? BaldDee 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To grossly inadequate and not at all policy-based AfD discussions were held. This has nothing to do with forcing a positive result and everything to do with enforcing WP:NOTE. MrZaius^talk 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references where I could, wikified the article a little more, and expanded it slightly. The second news reference (from ABC) is there to support the original Fox story, since the date of the latter might make people think it's an April Fool (maybe it is, I dunno). Since it's now in a better state than the article which has survived two previous AfDs, I'll say keep. I hadn't heard of it myself until I read it on WP, but plenty of others seem to, so to this editor it's of greater notability than any of the pages we're suggesting it be redirected to. Also, I suppose there's further expansion possible, since isn't there a consequent counter-meme along the lines of "every time a woman masturbates, God makes a puppy", or something similar? --DeLarge 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's close, but two of those sources, Fark and the T-Shirt store are obviously not WP:RELY, and the others only give cursory mention to this in the context of an XXXChurch article, which seems to support the calls for a merge more than anything else, IMHO. Will withdraw nom if reliable sources can be found discuss the phenomenon at length. MrZaius^talk 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Smerge (selectively merge) to B3ta. The meme is right at the threshold of notability required by WP:N with the Fox news and ABC news cites included in the article, where it is given some discussion in a slightly modified form. Unless and until more sources discuss this meme at length, it is appropriate to mention it in that article rather than as a stand alone article. Edison 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to B3ta. There's just not enough info in the refs to support notability of this as a topic of its own. Dicklyon 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to B3ta. It's a hilarious image, and perhaps worthy of mention in another article, but not worthy of its own article. Xihr 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an independent article. There are adequate third party sources that we can afford to cover this in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, please provide them. Given a thorough and reliably sourced case for note, the nom will gladly be withdrawn. Again, the sources in the article at present and that make only extremely brief, cursory mention of the topic in context of XXXChurch are not adequate. MrZaius^talk 03:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources etc., as said by the editor who nominated it. Grinder0-0 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an independent article. It's become a catchphrase. BlackSun 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The great thing about wikipedia is future generations will be able to read about memes in the historical sense, such as Hampster Dance. I don't watch the television show, Saturday Night Live, but wikipedia explained to me what the heck "More Cowbell" meant, and now I'm the wiser. --Sodium N4 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But unlike More Cowbell, this meme doesn't have Wired and Washington Post articles, or any other significant sources, about it. Dicklyon 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. --Myles Long 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ??! Why are the two shortest keep !votes both from admins (yourself and Raul654)? Very odd! --Quiddity 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with all the other Keep arguments. This is a major cultural phenomenon that masturbation kills kittens (because of kittens being cute and masturbation being gross), and if it was relevant in the past years it still is. Many people know this expression and use it commonly, so it is notable enough to deserve an article. Also Wikipedia:Inclusionism and WP:PAPER, should allow this article to stay. Canjth 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has become a well know expression on the internet. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. "Well known on the internet" is not a notability criterion; if you want to keep, you should be citing evidence of notability, which is what's at issue here. Dicklyon 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not exist to document photoshops. It's impossible to say what percentage of Internet users have seen it. It's a jokey aphorism based on It's a Wonderful Life. The only sources that MAY count as reliable are the Fox News link and the ABC News link, and they're not about the image. It belongs on Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica. It, and nearly every other article in Category:Internet memes should be deleted. --Pixelface 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a independent article please there are enough sources and this is one of the most famous internet memes too yuckfoo 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the sources to the article then, so this issue can be settled? Dicklyon 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.