Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (1st 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. --Coredesat 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goatse.cx

Absolutely not a single reference despite great details of its history, no chance of any reliable sources being added, huge linkfarms take up more than half of this article, no notability per WP:WEB, unencyclopaedic, and I am about to remove some WP:BLP material from it. If this topic does merit an article (and I disagree that it does), it needs to be completely re-written with reliable sources (or at least some sources).--Konst.able^Talk 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• BLP material removed: [1] - this was pretty blatant potential libel if not true.--Konst.able^Talk 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Changing to Neutral - per the recent clean up and the comments ragarding notability below, I see some good points to keep this article even though it is still poorly sourced and needs a major overhaul. So I am changing to neutral. I won't withdraw this AfD because I don't believe it belongs to me in the first place, and because there are still others who feel this should be deleted.--Konst.able^Talk 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I know it's not a wonderful metric, but 131,000 hits on google can't be wrong... --User24 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

to make it clearer, it's 131,000 for "goatse.cx", there's 1,510,000 for just "goatse". the term goatse (obviously) originated with goatse.cx. --User24 18:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with all the above, I can't think of one reason why it should exist. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This is one of the largest and most well-known internet memes (it arguably IS the most well-known). It's been mentioned in Snopes, and parodied in two video games (both mentioned in the article). I know at least one of those maps (the UT2004 one) was shipped in-game in 2004. There's a lot of crap in there, but it doesn't merit deletion. --Wafulz 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My original thought was to kill the link farms and remove the unsourced material, until I realised that there would be nothing left at all.--Konst.able^Talk 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What?? Not only is the information unreliable, but who is ever going to search for that article on Wikipedia? (I know that is not one of the criteria for deletion, I'm just adding my own opinion that does has no influence on my stance) Wikipediarules2221 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Almost 2000 edits since creation. I would argue lots of people have searched for this. --Wafulz 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Notable, several references to it in pop culture but the content needs to be cleaned up to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Derktar 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Keep Goatse.cx is well-known throughout the Internet as a prank site, and I couldn't imagine an encyclopedia aspiring to be "complete" not having an entry on this. In addition, the article already exists, and with quite a bit of detail. I certainly don't object to the so-called "link farms" being removed, but surley that doesn't justify deletion of the entire article? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's one of the two best known Internet shock sites (along with Rotten.com), a very well known Internet meme and also one of the best known ongoing domain name disputes/sagas. Caknuck 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It's one of the best-known shock sites and has reached a prominence comparable to other web memes out there. At the very least, stub it and expand with reliable sources later. SliceNYC 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep, so weak I'm wondering if it should just be a delete. It is a very popular internet meme and widely used shock site, but I'm not really sure if the meme popularity is worth a wikipedia article about it. If only it had better references. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: It's a well known site. So what if it's not sourced, sure it's a guidline that all articles should adhere too, but if something isn't source but is well known it shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Deathawk 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this should go, everything at List of Internet phenomena should go. Then again, that wouldn't be so bad. wikipediatrix 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable website and phenomenon. This article has been around for a long time and I believe has survived several previous AFD attempts. 23skidoo 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and cleanup. Sure, the article might suck, but it's notable, and that's what matters. ♠PMC♠ 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment a lot of people are claiming "notability" but could someone point me to which part of WP:WEB, or other notability criteria, that it satisfies. I have also removed a whole bunch of those links (still too much left, I just can't be bothered spending more time on it right now).--Konst.able^Talk 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a policy. It scores millions of Google hits, has spawned thousands of products, and I've mentioned it before, but two major game developers have parodied it in their prodcuts and snopes has written about it (for reasons unknown, you've removed this from the article), along with The Scotsman. The whole basis of notability is that when something is this popular, people tend to research it and publish information. --Wafulz 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I give you [2] (Kuro5hin), [3] (Boing Boing) and [4] (Scotsman.com). Caknuck 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Scotsman is a fine source, but the other two? Nope. Still, these don't even verify most of the article's content. GassyGuy 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, but WP:RS is rather an important concept. If there were reliable sources for this, I'd be willing to change my mind, but it really can't be more than a stub at best, if using Snopes.com as a reference. I would recommend deleting this, redirecting it to shock site, and pare that entry down so that it includes only the sourced material. GassyGuy 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible Keep and Cleanup. If there aren't any good sources on the page, then go find some. Don't go deleting without even attempting to save the article. --Hemlock Martinis 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: finding sources is the task of people wanting to keep the article, not those wanting to delete it. If you feel this is the strongest possible keep, then you shuld be the one looking for sources to show that it meets WP:V and our other policies. Fram 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as there's certainly sources on this site [5] and [6] and even [7]. Notability is in this case, established by the same principle. Yes, this article is difficult to write in a proper manner, and you might well be right about the link farms, but that doesn't equal deletion. I could almost support a redirect to shock site but it seems people don't want even that much, thus in this case I'm going to have to err in favor of being overprotective and go with a keep. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your links are to a message board, another message board, and a primary source. Not only are those not recommended sources, they still don't verify the majority of the content in the article. GassyGuy 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to verify the majority of the content, just show that there are sources. And an official document from a registrar about a problem is hardly objectionable, especially since they confirm already existing information. FrozenPurpleCube 13:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep what? SchmuckyTheCat 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep period. Danny Lilithborne 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and I say that about very few internet memes. Artw 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Those that are complaining about sources have clearly not searched for it on google. You should probably do so. Timbatron 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources I find are message board, blogs, and other sources that cannot be used for writing an encyclopaedia. Please, do help me out by pointing to the reliable sources. GassyGuy 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per other Keeps †he Bread 05:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Extensive use on the internet, extreemly popular meme, many sources. --Mattarata 05:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I see two reliable sources so far: The Scotsman and Snopes. If this article is kept, it should be rewritten using only the information available in these. Please help keep Wikipedia a place of reliable information. Wickethewok 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the only reason this article is listed in Afd is because someone is offended by the content of the website, that doesn't make the phenomenon of this any less notable. Wikipedia is not censored.--MonkBirdDuke 08:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read this, the more I realize how utterly unsource-able most of this is to reliable sources. It's absolute crap, to be blunt. I agree wholeheartedly that WP is not censored, but WP also shouldn't be a repository for in-jokes, which this article admits Goatse is. I am not opposed to that little information which is able to be sourced reliably to be hosted as part of Shock site, but most of this is textbook original research. GassyGuy 08:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (but Cleanup) A google search for "Goatse" easily demonstrates that this is both a noteworthy and well-documented phenomenon. ReidarM 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What is all this talk of unreliable sources? So what if the sources suck... that doesn't make it any less significant. It is unarguable that Goatse.cx is a huge Internet phenomenon, so why all of these attacks on the so-called "sources"? Yes they are absolute crap and just point at like 20 million different goatse sites, but for god's sake, please stop basing your reasons for deleting the article on "unverifiable sources". Is it that surprising that Time Magazine hasn't written an article about some guy holding his asshole open? If you want evidence that this is an important Internet phenomenon do two things: 1) look at the majority of people that voted keep on this page, despite the article being about disgusting material and at first glance appearing "unencyclopedic", and 2) do a google search for goatse and take note of the 1.7 million hits that it generates. Thank you. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So basically, if enough people have heard of it, we should throw Wikipedia guidelines to the wind and not care that there's no reliable citation available? I can't agree with your argument, but I appreciate that you're at least being very frank about it. GassyGuy 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, guidelines are just that - guidelines. And if they're not yet perfect, there's probably room for improvement. Guidelines which would prevent us from including a popular phenomenon like this, wouldn't seem very well suited for a universal encyclopedia. ReidarM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But WP:V is a policy, one of the basics of what is allowed /allowable in Wikipedia. You can disagree with it, but then you basically disagree with what is and isn't Wikipedia. Fram 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to add yet another useless reference to a highly unreliable source - GARFIELD: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12337576@N00/85983801/ (link spotted on http://www.firstgoatse.com/shock.htm] ReidarM 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

another weak source: Anil_Dash and his New York Times Social Hack featuring a "Goatse" t-shirt http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/06/anil_dash_goats.html and http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=anil+dash+goatse&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ReidarM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm suprised to see this article has content, and even (non-offensive) picures. Could do with some more sources and a cleanup, but it is not beyond saving :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep very notable internet meme. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very notable website, and per above arguments. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as above. Very notable meme and easily meets WP:WEB. Prolog 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Goatse.cx is one of the internet's most popular phenomena, and definitely merits its own article; sources CAN and WILL be found. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup - despite the site's offensiveness over the years, it is still notable. --Mhking 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above. One of the most famous Internet memes. Haven't there been several AfDs over this already? - Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but Clean Up - It is a well known internet meme. There are even lesser known internet memes, such as Super Hardcore Grandma and Pokemon Kid. It should stay up to let people know exactly what they are dealing with before they get goatse'd. Please keep it. It's an ounce of prevention.

• Keep The topic is notable but disgusting. I am pleased not to have seen the picture. The poor state of the article is not itself a reason for deletion. I agree the content should be restricted to verifiable information. The problem of linkfarms cluttering wikipedia should be addressed elsewhere. I am almost sure the article satisfies 3. of WP:WEB and would be suprised if it does not satisfy 1. Goatse is one of the most famous shocksites, which is an encyclopedic subject, even though it is quite disgusting. Rintrah 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• K33p, Goatse is clearly notable as the first shock site on the Internet. The rest of the rationale for deleting this, e.g. the article isn't good, isn't really a criterion for deleting something. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Extremely notable website, content not withstanding. EVula 17:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — slap a {{references}} tag on it and be done with it. goatse.cx is most very notable. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You may find it repulsive, but Goatse has nevertheless its place in internet history. Gencoil 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, This is one of the single most notable internet memes ever, nearly every place of business here in central florida has heard of it and even my school's web filter notes goatse as an example of tasteless/pornography. --Superslash 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Something very interesting The only "reliable" source, The Scotsman article cites Wikipedia as a source! So it cannot be used. The Snopes article is not a relible source at all as it is an informal composition based mostly on reader emails, and it is not really about Goatse.cx itself only making references to it - again linking to Wikipedia to explain what it is! Now this whole Wikipedia article is a violation of WP:V which is a policy and really does need brutal stubbing.--Konst.able^Talk 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How does it cite Wikipedia as a source? All it says is There are many such unpleasant places on the web and you can find comprehensive details of them on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of the information he used from there is from here. --Wafulz 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but it goes into those "comprehensive details" right after mentioning Wikipeida, and as it mentions nothing else as a source this is a strong implication. If you look at the version of the article the day before the publication it contains all the facts referred to by the Scotsman.com editorial, and out of the hundreds of related links it points out only those mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Somehow I doubt that they did any independent research on this themselves apart from Wikipedia.--Konst.able^Talk 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that the scotsman article mentions any of the detailed history that the Wikipedia article is describing anyway, there is still no source for that.--Konst.able^Talk 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be cleaned up; currently it's one of the best "clean" sources of information on goatse and it would be terribly sad to see it go. Crummy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• An obvious keep. Everyking 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ridiculous - keep! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This AfD can't be for real. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the disappearance of the original Goatse site, this Wikipedia article has been the most "informative" reference to the background and history. The Wikipedia article remains the top hit for "goatse". For the wider good of the internet, is it preferable that the top link continues to point to a clean source, rather than any of the shock sites directly. While marking the article as citation needed is appropriate, simply removing that information from the public domain for the sake of it is unnecessary. Sladen 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Petition rejected, keep I'm afraid :( - Francis Tyers · 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Goatsepedia. Teresa Isaac 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You mean Encyclopedia Dramatica? It has the full set of Kirk Johnson pictures. Anomo 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. as for Sladen --Cyclopia 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is relevant to the human experience.
• Comment I suspect the nomination was due to someone seeing the image for the first time. Anomo 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the nomination was due to what I said. A poorly written article with no sources and probably nothing but a clump of myth and rumours presented as fact. I've seen the image plenty of times before. All happened to be on Wikipedia during RC patrol, you would understand what I mean if you would ever do some.--Konst.able^Talk 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Stroke that last statement, did not mean it as a personal attack in any way. Just pointing out that images like these turn up a lot around Wikipedia (and I've seen much worse than Goatse.cx, I'll spare you the details) and this is not why I nominated Goatse.cx.--Konst.able^Talk 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. very (in)famous shock site --Xnobjafnyy 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep a notable and very well known net phenomenom. Let's not be squeamish about this. Xdenizen 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's obviously no chance that this will be deleted, but I have to say it's rather frustrating that 2/3 - 3/4 of the keep reasoning is basically "I've heard of it" or "Why was this even nominated?" or similar comments without any real attempt to show how the majority of this content can be verified. Is somebody to purge the original research from this article after it's kept? I would do so right now, but then I'd be accused of vandalism since I still think it can be adequately covered in shock site without its own page, based on the dearth of reliable info available. GassyGuy 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is what I'm getting from this too. People seem to be ignoring the issue and shooting the messenger instead.--Konst.able^Talk 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but I still think deleting the entire article may not be the best thing to do here. Forgive me for my naive newbie question: the popularity of the phenomenon should be easy to establish through primary sources - wouldn't it be possible to build an article around this? Of course I absolutely agree that pure speculations about persons etc are highly inappropriate, and need to be removed, but I somehow thought the popularity of the phenomenon itself is verifiable without a lot of academic or established print media secondary sources? I also thought some verifiable trivia may be worth mentioning, such as that goatse.cx was one of the earlier domain hacks? ReidarM 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with primary sources is that several uses of them can violate Wikipedia policy regarding original research. Generally, primary sources should only be used if reliable sources have introduced a concept, but the primary source is necessary for proper clarification and/or illustration, or something to that degree. To be specific for this article - look at the entire section about parodies, tributes, and trivia. Not only are trivia sections generally discouraged, but there is not a single reliable source that introduced the idea of parodies or tributes, so that all of these are left without real reference and violate the original research policy. Now look at the Geographic Location section. While the place to which a ".cx" would be easy to verify with a reliable source, the rest of this section appears to be original research. While it may even be possible to have decent sourcing of the date when the site went offline (for section The Site Goes Offline), the reporting on the rest of the content appears to use either primary sources or message board postings - the former aren't recommended, the later aren't reliable. Origin section - completely original research. Etymology - speculation in its entirety. This sort of thing is usually removed straightaway from articles about, say, radio and TV call letters when editors offer etymological possibilities. While I can't argue that the proposed etymology makes sense, there is no sources to document the claim, which goes again WP policy. The lead appears to be relatively harmless, as a brief description of the content is a permissible illustration in my opinion, although it is still a borderline inclusion without proper sourcing. Still, as it is a description of the content rather than any sort of synthesis of it, it may be acceptable. The thing is, if you were to pull most of the information that truly can't be sourced reliably, you're left with just a little bit of information that could easily be housed in the shock site article, with this redirecting there. GassyGuy 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I too am concerned about the lack of secondary sources, but I don't think that should stop us from having an article on this (in)famous domain. At some point, some sociology major will write a doctoral dissertation on Internet shock sites and get it published in a journal. In the meantime, we can do our best based on the popular knowledge of the site and the primary sources we do have. Between me and Konstable, considerable changes have already been made to the article, improving it infintesimally from the version we had before. I can't imagine too many people objecting to keeping the article as it is in its current state... it is much better now and can definitely be improved. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Generally, if something is lacking sources, that's a cleanup problem. If something can't be sourced, that justifies the removal of the content. It troubles me that we should keep unsourceable information or "popular knowledge" and assume that it will eventually be reliably sourced because a source will eventually exist. That, to me, is no better than "this band will eventually be notable" or "this person will eventually do something" or "my pet goldfish will eventually star in its own television series." If a source doesn't exist for the information, then it really should be purged from the article. GassyGuy 05:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The examples you cite all involve speculation about insignificant things becoming significant. I contend again that this article is significant (pretty unarguably, and Google works as a great source for that)... Our problem, however, is an almost complete lack of secondary sources. I would speculate that this is due to 1) the site's content, 2) its lack of publicity in academia (it's popular on the Internet), and 3) it's very "newness". You don't see history books that could properly be called "secondary sources" and referenced in an encyclopedia published about our decade until many many years after it. So again, I argue that the sources are a problem, but that we can make do in the meantime. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• And what I'm saying is that even still, some (most) of the current content needs to be purged as a violation of the original research policy. GassyGuy 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll certainly do my best to look for sources. Has anyone done a real, ie scientific, literature search (as opposed to popular search engines such as google)? Would it be of any help if the goatse.cx site has been cited in scholarly works, such as 䐀Spiegel, Dana Sean; Coterie: A visualization of the conversational dynamics within IRC; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999)⠀http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~spiegel/thesis/Thesis.pdf ReidarM 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if this paper actually did cite it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It's included in the raw data, which, in this case, consists of logged IRC chats, in Appendix B. There's no mention of goatse in the actual paper, nor does the chat even discuss what the site is, just has the word appear twice. GassyGuy 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, wrong paper. here it's cited: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/20031017hcsub.pdf also, Geoghegan, Bernard; The Other Agent: Cryptography, Computing and Postwar Theories of Intelligent Communication; Northwestern University (?2005?) refers to "goatse, an infamous pornographic web prank" http://www.agentabuse.org/geoghegan.pdf ReidarM 08:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

further - LeBlanc, Tracy Rene; “IS THERE A TRANSLATOR IN TEH HOUSE?”: CULTURAL AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF A VIRTUAL SPEECH COMMUNITY ON AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD; University of Louisiana at Lafayette (2005): In response to an off-topic post in one thread, a member posted, "Don't make me unleash the goatse on you!" The "goatse" (short for "goatsex") is an image circulated on the internet that is a favorite of the Pen community. It shows a highly pixilated image of a man holding his anus open, magnified to revolting proportions. Many threats like this surface when someone posts off topic, or tries to change the subject of talk within a thread. The image of "goatse" is used both as a "topic nazi" threat and as a form of thread derailment, both context dependent. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04072005-145922/unrestricted/thesis.pdf [Note - I never seem to get the wiki markup right, forgive me for my lack of skills. Anyone, fix it if you like] ReidarM 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reply These two certainly seem like better sources. I think they count as reliable under policy, though I'm not actually well-versed enough with theses to give a definitive. Can someone who knows for certain chime in? Anyway, they do look like good sources. Personally, I'd accept them. The problem remains, however, is that here is what these sources confirm: 1) Goatse exists. 2) This one can be used to source some of the ways in which goatse is used, and even now there is a reference for etymology (e.g., "According to blah blah blah, "goatse" is used as a short form of "goat sex" blah blah blah). Nice research. What these two sources do not do, however, is verify the majority of the rest of the content, including the discussion of the origins, the tributes and parodies, and the rest. I'm not changing my vote only because the verifiable content produced by these papers is still the same content housed at the shock site article, but I do think these two papers are certainly better than the current sourcing and should be used in both articles. GassyGuy 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to add that I don't think any of the above are top-notch sources: personally I think they may even be wrong about a lot of things. Still, something at least. ReidarM 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Funny, just a couple days ago I was trying to explain to a non-internet-junkie what "goatse" was, and referred them to our article. It's famous, indeed probably the most famous shock site/image in internet history. Finding reliable sources is of course a challenge, but we can do our best. ɜ ɛ, Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Typical wikipedia. Some moron who thinks he knows everything is presented with new info, and thinks it's fake. I can't stand this site anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkkicks (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 October 2006

• Strong keep, per the massive number of google hits. This is obviously notable. And what's there to reference? I mean, the validity of the article is easily checked by going there yourself ^{(That's a link to goatse in its full glory, you've been warned)}. In conclusion, this should not be deleted in all. ~ Flameviper 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep its a huge and popular mainstream American if not world phenomena that should deserve wikipedia attention. - Patman2648 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's popular in Europe, NZ, Australia and North America: http://www.google.com/trends?q=goatse,+goatse.cx&date=all&geo=all&ctab=1&sa=N ReidarM 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep or Merge with an article on internet memes.--Vercalos 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to shock sites. It's unpleasant, but it's notable. --Elonka 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Cleanup if you must remove information, do so, but goatse is definitely notable enough above all other shock sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.197.38 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 October 2006
• Strong Keep I actually found this article quite informative. I had always seen the term mentioned on sites like slashdot, but never truly knew what it referred to. It was interesting to see where this 'joke' has been repeated, such as in video games.
• Strong keep one of the most well known www-sites in Finland. --Zzzzzzzzzz 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Same arguments as listed above. SpectrumDT 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was and still is notable IMHO. --Vlad|-> 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is factual information, to bad if someone finds it offensive—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.21.18 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 October 2006.
• Keep - Is very notable.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -It appears that those voting for delete are most likely humiliated victims of trolling taking out their shame and rage on the article. Whirling Sands 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And you're a sockpuppet. What's your point? GreenReaper 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And you're being rude. Whirling Sands 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And I'm telling Whirling Sands to read the very important WP:NPA policy immediately.--Konst.able^Talk 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • And we all started our comments with "and," a huge grammar no-no! Whirling Sands 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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.