Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus with erection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus with erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article covers single printing of a set of pictures of Jesus with an erect penis. This did not receive coverage outside of a single piece on WorldNetDaily and possibly local newspaper. Contested prod where the remover suggested that it was "interesting" and did not have a policy backed rationale. Suggesting removal per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:NOTE (specifically the GNC). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only notable for being the Outrage of the Day among cable news and trying to rouse up some people, and which quickly flashed by. Every stupid thing some artist with a sophomoric sense of humor does to decipt Jesus like this thing doesn't need attention or an article here. Nate • (chatter) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP does not keep an archive of every editorial cartoon, and this should not be the exception. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established the usual way. Even those arguing delete can't help but admit it's notable... WilyD 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, you forgot that "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly "would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least. WilyD 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the Controversial newspaper caricatures list. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarise yourself with policies before quoting them. Substantive contrasts trivial. The WorldNetDaily story is substantial - not only that, but so substantial that one can't honestly and informedly argue otherwise. Subjects aren't about "worthiness" or "unworthiness" in whether or not they deserve an article on an ethical level - the point is whether or not having an article is a) possible and b) valuable to us. You might well feel it's stupid (and you're correct in that), but that's neither here nor there. We're not supposed to be trying to impose our values on readers (see WP:NPOV), but writing a comprehensive neutral reference work. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy is such an enormous subject that it necessitates many articles (if only to make them loadable in a reasonable time for those of us with 300 baud modulators/demodulators), forcing us to write many spun out articles for simple organisational purposes. Until you forget "worthy/unworthy" and stop trying to impose your values on the reader, it'll be hard to see, but "Does having this article make Wikipedia a better reference work?" has a clear answer "yes". "Does this meet the usual guidelines for what's included?" has a clear answer "yes", and it is because these two are supposed to be the same question. WilyD 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the Controversial newspaper caricatures list. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly "would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just WP:IDONTLIKEIT is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least. WilyD 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, you forgot that "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The English Wikipedia isn't the only one with an article about this subject.SPNic (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[citation needed][reply]
- Why "citation needed?" All you have to do is look at the "In other languages" section. You'll see that it's also available in German, Simple English, and Alemannic? If it's gotten coverage in more than one Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it's notable.SPNic (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some students publish a silly cartoon as a stunt. They attract attention from William Donohue, Bill O'Reilly, and other usual suspects. Step one does not equal notability. Step two does. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to back that up with sources? The article does NOT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. A student creates a provocative cartoon and it is published by a student newspaper, it gets mentioned in World Net Daily, a conservative paper. Not every silly cartoon which gets mentioned by conservative bloviators needs an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if people don't riot, pillage, and kill over your offensive cartoon, it's not as offensive as you'd like and not notable either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - coverage is of a single event with no lasting impression. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has been on the O'Reilly Factor, which is one of the most watched TV "news" programs in the US. --Raphael1 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks the multiple substantive, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per, for instance, Deor. This is the only hit on Google news, my yardstick for this kind of thing, and it's from the U of Oregon campus paper. Comparing this to the Danish cartoons is a bit specious, since those are well-covered in the news. This isn't, no matter what O'Reilly claims--of course, if he rants about it continuously this may change, but until then, out it must go. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind, that this story is almost 3 years old. Back in 2006 it has definitely reached substantial notability. --Raphael1 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It didn't leave a dent in the news archives. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a totally notable Free Speech issue.Critical Chris (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Note that it is now much better sourced than when this deletion discussion started, and passes the notability threshold unambiguously.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please. Deor (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The O'Reilly coverage and the Media Matters reaction constitutes significant coverage. Obviously note 4 is vague, but that's a problem with the article itself rather than the topic's notability.--ragesoss (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please. Deor (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable free speech controversy, extending over a considerable period. An absurd use of not news. Some of what's in the news is notable. The citations should of course be improved to be as specific as possible. DGG (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom this is hardly "totally notable" its just a news item. And we're not a newspaper archive. JBsupreme (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would agree with Edison that this is a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Notable per reliable sources (O'Reilly/Fox;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:46, 19 January 2009 (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.