Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx (5th nomination)
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
— User:Protonk, 05:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Notability)