Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (5th 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 (non-admin closure). A consensus has formed that the article satisfies notability criteria. Ruslik (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
        Protonk, because he is the editor, he has the credentials to have what he writes to be considered notable and reliable. "Errata" sections of newspapers are reliable, after all. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 30 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]
- In addendum to that addendum: $\left\{\lnot \left[\lnot \left(N\Rightarrow P\right)\Rightarrow \lnot \left(N\Leftarrow P\right)\right]\right\}\forall \left(N,P\right)$ —SlamDiego_←T 20:41, 26 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]
        Is it possible to change guidelines, with consensus, in WP:RS? bsrboy (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Comment I challenge that this is not a WP:RS, since the source is the BBC. That it happens to be posted to YouTube is irrelevant, because this is attributable to a reliable source. This isn't your old YouTube Poops argument, it's not a fan-authored video, but has attestment both via the BBC at [5] and [6] as well as the Goatse tie-in mentioned at [7]. And even though the BBC has pulled (and by the action, effectively denied this entry), it remains extant. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:33, 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~~ Neutral per below 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]
- Google hits can not be used to establish notability — reliable sources must be used, and this article has not one which goes into the subject in detail. That is required to establish notability as I understand it and from viewing other AfDs (such as WP:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)), there must be at least one source, if not multiple, which delve into the subject in more than a passing glance. This is in response to your second point as well. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 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]
Keep like it or not, it's part of the culture of the Internet and has plenty of courses to back that assertion up. JuJube (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really fail to see how WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. We aren't saying "ZOMG, this is gross, delete". We are saying "it isn't notable per our guidelines, delete". Does the fact that the page is about a subject that might be censored mean WP:N doesn't apply? Protonk (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to SlamDiego, Axl, and Canadian Actor - None of you have used specific reliable secondary sources to back the assertion that Goatse is notable. I urge you to reconsider your positions until such time specific sources can be provided which delve into the topic at hand, rather than give passing information on it. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: For purposes of an AfD, I also wouldn't bother producing a specific “reliable source” to show that Karl Rove was “notable”. I'd instead wonder how in the world someone could actually believe or hope to persuade others that Karl Rove or Goatse.cx weren't “notable”, and move on as I do when encountering problematic people on city street corners. —SlamDiego_←T 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, you either a) Do not have a source providing notability, or b) Don't care enough on the topic at hand to go searching for one, instead hoping that items are notable simply because someone(s) believes they are, much like truth. Further, there's more than a drop of sarcasm in that message — please keep that out of the discussion please. (meant in all seriousness - My post is not to be read as if I was being sarcastic). =) --Izno (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Rather: (c) While any article requires “reliable sources”, the AfD discussions for some subjects simply do not. Demands that “reliable sources” in some AfDs (such as one about “Karl Rove”) may be summarily dismissed, like strange mutterings on street corners. Just as the fellow on the street corner has already lost in his attempt at persuasion, anyone seeking to have “Karl Rove” or “Goatse.cx” deleted as lacking “notability” or “reliable sources” has already lost. I am not being sarcastic; I am bluntly calling a trowel a trowel. Please keep the strange mutterings out of the discussing. We're just going to have many editors voicing “keep” followed by long and ineffectual threads where you try to argue that ~~“Karl Rove”~~ “Goatse.cx” lacks “notability” because there aren't “reliable sources” in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. The point of the WP:N guideline was to avoid this whole tea leaf reading about who is and isn't important enough for inclusion into wikipedia. If we can find reliable sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial fashion, it meets WP:N. there isn't some alternate definition by which AfD's should be rejected because "everyone knows" how notable a picture of some guy's ass is. If an AfD for Karl Rove came up the first thing I would do is mention that he has 2 book length biographies devoted to him, not that "everyone knows" about him. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one has proposed the reading tea leaves. The simple fact is that if the article on Karl Rove presently had no “reliable sources”, the proper response would not be to seek deletion of the article about him, but to work to improve it. An AfD for “Karl Rove” would fail, and this AfD for “Goatse.cx” will fail — because the vast majority of interested editors already know (regardless of tea leaves or “reliable sources”) that each of these is notable. —SlamDiego_←T 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, actually, if Karl Rove had no sources that would be one of the options - that or stubbing and then working on the article, due to BLP (of course, that is only because Karl Rove is a bad example - I see your point). That aside, it isn't up to the majority of editors to decide whether the site is notable - it's up to the reliable sources to decide, and then Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources comment on. Unfortunately, from what I can see on this AfD, many of the !voters didn't !vote keep from a policy/guideline view - They didn't say "these sources are(n't) of quality, so we should do "x" per "y"", they said "Keep - Part of Internet culture". That doesn't work with what Wikipedia is. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Wikipedia could remove the Rove article, with or without “reliable sources”. But it won't, because too many editors have too much common sense for that. While it is not up to a majority of editors to decide whether to keep the article, the decision is made by consensus — even when consensus runs counter to policy and precedent. In this case, however, consensus won't run counter to policy. Even if there is some strained reading of WP:RS that would argue against “Goatse.cx”, WP:IAR would trump it. —SlamDiego_←T 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No again. I'm trying to be perfectly clear. We would not keep an article on Karl Rove just because "everyone knows him". If a Karl Rove article had no soruces and came to AfD, someone would come along (like someone did with the scotsman) and say, "oh hai. I have 2 books about Karl Rove and about a bajillion newspaper articles, do those count?" We would (hopefully) not just ask around on the internet if anyone has heard of him. The purpose of WP:N is to make sure that the basis for inclusion is not "common knowledge" but reliable sources. Sometimes this means that stuff "everyone knows" gets deleted, but it also means that we can keep articles on the Ramsey Rule and Attic Greek. Poll the average wikipedia user and see if they know about that. Knowledge needs to be outward seeking, not inward looking. We build articles from sources and we keep articles because the sources exist. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Being perfectly clear won't, unfortunately, keep you from being perfectly wrong. “Karl Rove” might have to be reduced to a sub with all sort of tags, but it would not be deleted, and the reason that it wouldn't be deleted is indeed that a sufficient share of interested editors know that he's important. “Everybody” knows the gaping asshole, so the article will stay. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It wouldn't be deleted because there are secondary sources that cover the topic. If there were no secondary sources that covered the topic, it would be deleted. The fact that secondary sources exist can certainly be attributed to "everyone knowing" about Karl Rove, but the process isn't short circuited. I agree with you that knowledge and interest on the part of editors is necessary to build the article, but from a guideline standpoint, sources make the article. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it simply wouldn't. Common sense would prevail. WP:IAR would be invoked over absurd invocations and interpretations of other rules. —SlamDiego_←T 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        IAR is certainly an option where no sources exist but it is plain as day that an article where sources exist is made notable by those sources, not by some appeal to fame or common sense. There are no "absurd invocations and interpretations". The simplest method to make a hypothetical unsourced Karl Rove article notable is to add sources. The simplest way to make this article notable is to add sources. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IAR isn't merely an option; it is a guaranteed response in the cases such as this. It is commonsense that “notability” can exist without “reliable sources” — things were notable in an era when there were no “reliable sources” whatsoever. The final two sentence of your comment exhibit a gross confusion that perhaps lies at the heart of your futile argumentation: “Notability” is a required attribute of subjects, not of the articles about them. We do not need the article “Karl Rove” to be notable; we only need for Karl Rove himself to be “notable”. We cannot make him “notable” by adding “reliable sources”, nor do we make the article itself “notable” by doing so. Likewise with “Goatse.cx” and with Goatse.cx. Further, an AfD should not be used as a whip to force the inclusion “reliable sources” when the subject of the article is already known to be “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        this seems to be mirroring the discussion below. TL;DR, a reliance on folk decision for notability results in a systemic article bias based on the makeup of editors, a problem especially important where the makeup of editors is liable to diverge substantially from the makeup of the reader base. Reliance on reliable sources replaces this bad bias with a less bad bias. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is proposing that folk decision be treated as necessary for notability either; the systematic bias that one might fear from such an imposition is avoidable, and the systematic bias of the rules that you propose are also reduced. —SlamDiego_←T 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Outdent) See below, I figured out what you were talking about and responded. Sorry it took so long. As for the folk decision, my point there is that the proposal has already happened. the creation of WP:N was a step toward eliminating that element of systemic bias (really, replacing it largely with a bias toward material previously published). Without reliance on source material we don't have much to go on with regard to the inclusion/exclusion of articles as far as criteria goes. "fame" "importance" and "significance" are all pretty malleable words. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTE didn't tell us to ignore popular interest, nor that we must disbelieve that there is popular interest because no one has produced a “reliable source”. The effect of WP:NOTE is to counter conviction that Wikipedia should have content simply because a few editors are convinced that, in spite of lack of notice either from the public or from those with some institutional standing, the content is interesting or important. —SlamDiego_←T 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Google cannot be relied on in general, I think in this case it suffices. In what way can 900k individual hits referring to the issue and it alone be *all* unreliable? And in what way is it unreliable? Do we have the suspicion that large proportions of them are made by people associated to the site itself? The answer, I'm guessing is no. Hence, the google search result in itself is a reliable secondary source providing direct evidence that goatse is a well known phenomenon on the web, and has driven the existence of a wide variety of sites relating to it. That makes it notable.--Fangz (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some more googling, surely this ought to seal the argument? [8] --Fangz (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a reference in The Scotsman. Axl (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (2xec, before you produced a source which I will take a moment after I post to analyze) Have you read WP:GOOGLE, or the very first paragraph of Notability? "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right."
    I can immediately take your 900k hits and make it 60,000 using google per goatse -site:wikipedia.org -site:goatse.cx. In other words, yes, I can manipulate Google to make it an unreliable source in this context, and in most. You can quote a number, I can quote a number, both of us twisting it to our ways — that makes it inherently unreliable. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. I'm not sure you can submit search syntaxes to google like that. Note that -site:goatse.cx and -site:wikipedia.org both leave around 650,000 hits. I suspect that your query breaks google in some way - in any case, it is flatly not plausible that there are 600k articles referring to goatse on wikipedia. (If that is the case, it'd be seriously disturbing.)--Fangz (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a legitimate method to searching on Google — feel free to do it in that way yourself. However, now you're arguing the point of what the number is, when I argued that you cannot use Google in such a way because of the number can and will change depending on the search made. Whatever the number that pops up, it doesn't work. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are of course confusing necessity with sufficiency. The fact that $X$ $X$ is not necessary for “notability” doesn't mean that $X$ $X$ is insufficient for “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Refactor please. I honestly didn't get that, though I'm rather sure I should. :/ --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy that you invoke says that fame isn't necessary for notability, but you are reading it to say that fame isn't sufficient. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one is confusing anything. google hits aren't necessary for notability, nor are they sufficient. Neither one is the case. By a happy accident, google hits tend to correspond with notability (as google indexes what people are writing about), but it has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, you are perfectly wrong. Not about Google hits being neither necessary nor sufficient, but in thinking that this somehow has any bearing upon the point that I actually made. Izno invoked a policy that says that fame isn't necessary as if it were a claim that fame isn't sufficient. I didn't deny that Google hits are insufficient; however, they would be sufficient if they were a better indicator of actual fame. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not commenting on your top level point (where you find the scotsman source, which appears to cover the subject sufficiently. I'm referring to the necessary/sufficient back and forth. neither fame nor google hits are a component of Notability, only sourcing is. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've made no reference to the Scotsman article (prior to this sentence); if, in your flailings, you are going to scramble brute fact as well as logic, then discussion is going to be even more ridiculous. Your hastily reconstructed argument about fame and “notability” fails for two reasons. First, the claim to which you originally objected was not that fame implies “notability”, but a point of pure logic — that the non-necessity of fame did not imply the insufficiency of fame. (Izno's confusion is plainly exhibitted in his “!=” comment, which would only work if the implication were bilateral.) Second, it is only under a strained reading of the rules that sourcing would imply notability. Many subjects are extremely well sourced yet there would be outrage and ridicule if the size and number of Wikipedia articles on these subjects were proportional to the amount of sourcing, as they are supposed to be proportional to “notability”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh for fucks sake. I've gone through this whole exchange without insulting you or belittling your arguments. I don't need to be talked down to. I'm sorry I mistook your reply for the "parent" of this offshoot (which mentioned the scotsman). I'll try to be perfectly clear. the guideline to which we are appealing is WP:N, which does not require a strained reading to see that sources are needed. It is plain in the text. Above and variously, users have made claims about "common knowledge", "fame", "google hits" etc as being either sufficient or necessary for notability. My point was, and remains, that no amount of fame/google hits/common knowledge generates notability per wikipedia's definition. Whether or not fame paves the way for secondary coverage is immaterial. I am prepared (as you note in the other mini-thread) to accept that some certain level of fame within a subculture could lead us to ignore all rules in keeping the entry. that's a perfectly valid argument to make. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with notability. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You've been talking down to multiple opponents for some time now; which wouldn't bother me in the least if in all that being “perfectly clear” you got the salient points correct. Again, you've read WP:NOTE as listing necessary conditions, when it merely lists sufficient condition. The reason that you haven't actually quoted a passage that says that reliable sources are necessary for “notability” is that you haven't found one to quote. We all know that “reliable sources” are necessary for “Goatse.cx” to be untagged and all that, but an AfD isn't about whether an article needs to be filled with tags; it's about whether Wikipedia should have the article at all. And, exactly as I explained much earlier, what we have is a bulk of editors here (using common sense) saying that of course we should have an article, and long threads in which a minority argues ineffectually. —SlamDiego_←T 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's moot with the scotsman article anyway. And I'll repeat. I never mentioned tags. WP:N refers to inclusion of an article, not tagging it. It's still not cool to bust me down like that. If I'm emphasizing that I'm attempting clarity it is because I have not been clear enough in the past. Clarity in discussion is a two way street. Either I am failing to convey, you are failing to understand or we are both falling short in some manner. I have no method of determining where the fault lies (and I don't really care), so for the sake of discussion I'm trying to make my points clear. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I wouldn't give a d_mn about your condescension if you would actually make and address salient points. No one said that you had mentioned tags; I said that you'd been calling for deletion when tagging was the appropriate tool. I am not persuaded to treat you as the arbiter of cool. I'm not failing to understand you — I quite understand why you've neither produced a quote from WP:NOTE illustrating that “reliable sources” are necessary for “notability” nor admitted that there is no such quote. The fault lies in your cleaving to an absurd principle. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Outdent) AHHHH. The light comes on. You are arguing that citing in reliable sources is sufficient but not necessary for notability. Now I get it. I don't interpret WP:N in this fashion. I can understand seeing lines like "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." and conclude that sourcing is a sufficient but not necessary condition. I look at sections like WP:NOBJ and lines like "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." and come to the conclusion that the intent of the guideline is to require independent sourcing of articles in order to establish notability. As I said before, this is moot now (w/ the scotsman) and could still be ignored by IAR. but what the guidelines say is clear to me. Reliable sources are required, except in the cases where the daughter guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) suggest inclusion. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Imagine! All of my talk of necessity versus sufficiency was really about necessity versus sufficiency. Who woulda thunk it? Your gross misreading of the guidelines would to turn upon equating “verifiable objective evidence” with “reliable sources”, a confusion very much of the same flavor as assuming that a one-way implication is bilateral. —SlamDiego_←T 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - no need to be sarcastic. At the beginning I thought you were talking about necessity v. sufficiency with regard to fame, google hits, etc. Also, I hardly think interpreting WP:N to read: articles need coverage in secondary sources is a gross misinterpretation. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sarcasm may not have been necessary, but there was sufficient cause for it. If WP:NOTE was intended to claim that “reliable sources” were necessary, then it could actually claim that, instead of referring to “verifiable objective evidence”. Further, there would then have been no need for a WP:NOTE separate from WP:RS. As I said, your misreading is pronounced. —SlamDiego_←T 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Har har. what does this line mean, then "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."? Protonk (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That “substantial coverage in reliable sources” is sufficient, that “published peer recognition” is sufficient, and that “the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines” are sufficient. Plainly, no one of these is necessary (because they are each sufficient yet not identical one to another), and nothing declares this list to be exhaustive. EoS. —SlamDiego_←T 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We aren't making some epistemological claim here. We are trying to run an encyclopedia. If the list of things constituting notability include RS, peer review and the criteria listed in the daughter guidelines how are we to interpret "Reliable sources are required, except in the cases where the daughter guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) suggest inclusion." as a gross misreading. Apart from the criteria listed in the daughter guidelines, , where in WP:N do we get the idea that notability comes from something other than sourcing? It we assumed (for a moment), that goatse didn't meet WP:WEB and we couldn't IAR, then what part of WP:N would you appeal to to assert that it is notable? I don't see this split between sufficient and necessary criteria in WP:N. Perhaps you can show me where, precisely, the wording fits your interpretation. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Epistemological claims are unavoidable here, and in the assembly of any proper encyclopedia. Your reading is a gross misreading because (a) it treats inclusion as equivalence; (b) the authors of WP:NOTE always had the option of making a simple declaration such as that which you put in quotes, yet no such thing appears in WP:NOTE; and (c) WP:NOTE would not need a separate existence from WP:RS if the intention was as you would claim. WP:NOTE does not seek to be precise and exhaustive for the same reasons that various other Wikipedia policies have a high degree of ambiguity — it is much harder to secure agreement for more precise and complete rules, and Wikipedia is largely in the hands of people who simply hate rules altogether. Wikipedia policies are not the product of formalists, and only a bad formalist or crazed nihilist would think that they were. Asking me to show precisely where WP:NOTE allows “Goatse.cx” presumes the fundamental falsehood, as I've already noted such things as Wikipedia's not declaring that list of criteria to be exhaustive. —SlamDiego_←T 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The scotsman article might be enough. Of course it is the only RS this article cites. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure, but not because the source is unreliable. The page can't be accessed from within the site's search — only from Google on the outside. I don't know that this matters, but it's something I thought I might bring up. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find that unfailingly common. Most site searching software is so bad, I just go to google and do a site: search. I wouldn't consider that a hit on the source. IMO, the scotsman is reliable, even if their IT dept sucks. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY KeepGoatse is a significant part of internet culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zug.com reference added. I've spent a couple of hours probing around to fill the gaping hole in the article. Axl (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the word play - 'gaping hole' in reference to goatse Towel401 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Scotsman article is good, and I think, when combined with the general infamy of the site, it is sufficient. I can't see anyone arguing that goatse isn't one of the most notorious shock sites online, and given that I can see real value in a Wikipedia page independent of notability. With a good RS added to that I'm happy to keep. - Bilby (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article now contains The Scotsman, Wired, and references to the BBC. Given the addition evidence pointing towards fame, and our common sense knowledge that it is famous, I think this is plenty to establish the notability of the site. - SeanL116 (SeanL116) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Izno, this article has had much cleanup. Plus, even without the cleanup the reliable sources prove that this subject is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never forget 01-14-2004. pyksy (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for great justice! 75.75.0.69 (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget epic lulz. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:34, 30 July 2008 (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.