Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (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The result was nomination withdrawn. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse.cx

Very unencyclopedic, wikipedia shouldn't have articles on low, disturbing stuff like this. It has multiple issues, and there is nothing to the site anyway. It shouldn't be here, and if Brian peppers shouldn't have an article being an internet meme, than neither shall this. I feel it is inapropriate for wikipedia. The sunder king 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am listing this page to be deleted and redirected to Shock Site because concensus has arose over time about the content of articles, and there isn't enough reliable material for this be of any article, with multiple issues on original research, unencyclopedic content, verifacation, needs cleanup, unaccuracy etc, and it is very unencyclopedic, whilst the part on it on Shock site tells you all there is to it more accurately. The sunder king 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination stinks of WP:WAX, WP: CENSORED. It's notable for being the shock site. Google hits are around a million, and if the registrar says they've failed two auctions and are taking legal procedings, it says something about the site itself. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that means anything, Brian Peppers is of the same meme, and has many google hits; but is unencyclopedic, so is this. The sunder king 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Brian Peppers was deleted for being a WP:BLP landmine. Will ^(talk) 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shock site, where it's already covered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- article has multiple issues on its own. The sunder king 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done redirected successfully, now this AFD must be closed. The sunder king 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down. It's only been... half an hour and this is nowhere near consensus. -Chunky Rice 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No kidding. Nom's disgust at the site is palpable -- and it was indeed disgusting -- but this is one of the most famous of Internet phenomena, with over 750 unique Google hits (by contrast, "United States" returns 901 unique hits), and so far I haven't found "low, disturbing stuff" in any policy listing of grounds for deletion. The extreme haste to shovel this out the door and subvert process is borderline bad faith. RGTraynor 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has only been here for a couple weeks and has been responsive on his talk page to advice on how to handle this AfD. It seems that inexperience is more likely than bad faith. That said, Keep since the article appears to be well sourced and the other reasons given aren't valid arguments for deletion. -Chunky Rice 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my new nomination reason chunky rice. The sunder king 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with keep for now. Sure, the article needs clean-up and contains original research, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. The sourcing could be better, but appears sufficient to me for notability purposes. -Chunky Rice 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't even need to read the article to know that Goatse.cx is one of the most well-known (and notorious) memes to ever hit the internet. If the article needs clean-up (I'm afraid to open the article because I'm at work) then there's plenty of resources out there. The blog Boing Boing has covered and linked to extensive news of the site's demise and resurrection. I believe the domain name was also for sale recently. In any case, keep this. FoamParty 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article concerns a well-known phenomenon. Also, nom bears no resemblance to reality, being a random collection of negative terms Lurker (said · done) 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only is this backed by multiple non-trivial third party sources, this is probably the most notoriously well known meme on the internet, period. Burntsauce 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn- not an experienced editor, I haven't learnt much about things like this, please explain rather than WP:BITE. The sunder king 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I really really doubt your claim, to the point I would suggest running a checkuser against your account(s). Burntsauce 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete /redirect to shock site. Shock site has a more NPOV focus rather than revelling in the details of the site. Wikipedia tends not to expound at length about every page of a website, this level of detail about internet phenomenon is the preserve of The Other (more puerile) Wiki. Plus, this is minging. And I can say that without this being about censorship, as that's not my reason for a delete opinion.Merkinsmum 19:06, 1 August 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.