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. It's obvious that this will be kept; while I see advantages to let things play out for another day or two, these nominations (this and the GNAA DRV) are really just disruptive and there's no point in giving more attention to any GNAA-related topics. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that promotes the same subject the former GNAA article promoted. Any differences that make this article, unlike the former GNAA article, useful for Wikipedia?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: How can an article be AfD'd by a user who quit Wikipedia in 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgia_guy/Goodbye_message 24.27.92.149 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article seems to be written with a neutral, encyclopaedic tone, and in any case, articles should be rewritten to remove non-neutrality, not deleted. The subject is clearly notable, as indicated by the numerous sources. AfD is not a cleanup template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough RS and information for a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom provides no valid policy-based rationale for deletion. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:OTHERCRAP, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This goes into further detail at this essay here, where

The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in deletion debates, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:

• Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

riffic (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only ever did one thing, and even the article says that was hardly newsworthy. Figmentary (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Figmentary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Please read the article. Goatse Security were noted for three separate events. Also, the "hardly newsworthy" was an opinion. Even if it were "hardly newsworthy", it create a stir in the media. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- People are too quick to call on the deletion of that which offends their delicate sensibilities. This is a well written, well sourced, notable and encyclopedic article. Snaisybelle (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I've included reliable sources wherever possible. I haven't included any unreferenced or unsupported statements in the article. I don't believe that I've inserted any POV into the article. I don't "own" the article, and anyone is able to revise the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-referenced work that passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, the nominator doesn't give any reason to delete. Nolelover 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep no argument for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- the organization has adequate coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. It is well referenced and written in a neutral POV. Danski14^(talk) 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- "OMGz - it's the GNAA again. We can't have that on Wikipedia!!". Looks like a well written, cited article with multiple independent points of notability. Why is this up for AfD? - Alison ^❤ 20:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting someone close this already... Nolelover 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of the GNAA-related discussions on Wikipedia is littered with speedy closed AFDs and DRVs. Perhaps by letting things play out for more than a day, we can avoid having 20+ discussions about this article. No one has to bother commenting if they don't want to, and a few more days is trivial when you consider the big picture. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okee-Dokee. I just have snow on my mind...first day of fall, I guess. Nolelover 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly no harm in leaving this for at least a couple more days, but it doesn't seem likely that this has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted based on the arguments presented. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a chance...Oh well, I guess we inclusionists win again. :) Nolelover 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Group appears to be notable, and is made up of individuals who may be notable in their own right. As long as the article can keep a neutral tone, and refrain from becoming a SOAPBOX, then I vote to keep. Heck what is even the DEL criteria this is proposed under? Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2010 (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.