Deletion of Goatse.cx (5th nomination)

Comment: I really fail to see how  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: JJL:And nowhere has anyone mentioned that it is disgusting &mdash; 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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: As my !vote says, I am using  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: reluctantly). I, too, am disgusted. However "Goatse" is a notable subject with many appropriate references. Several people above seem to be unaware of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: 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 .  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 .  Sorry, this one doesn't meet WP:N.  Delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OR)