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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus with erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable cartoon. There has been no long-term coverage of this artwork, so it fails the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source. Xijky (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I reagard the cartoon as obscene. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement has absolutely no relevance to our decision of whether to delete it. Firstly, obscenity is subjective and we do not make these decisions based on our own subjective feelings. Secondly, it could be obscene but notable, in which case we would keep it, or not obscene but non-notable, in which case we would delete it. This isn't The Little Kiddies Book Of Wholesome Subjects, it is an encyclopaedia. We cover everything that is notable, including bad stuff. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view this is borderline, so I will stay neutral for now. If anybody can dig up proof of ongoing controversy or legal actions then I would !vote "Keep". Otherwise I feel it could possibly be merged into an article on a relevant wider subject of freedom of expression, defamation of religions or something like that. I see no reason to delete the image if there is any article that can find a valid use for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lack of sustained coverage indicates to me that this is not notable. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I find brief coverage at the time of the original publication, but I find no indication of lasting notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — There's no requirement that continuing coverage is required to establish notability. The O'Reilly coverage at the time is sufficient. 184.60.19.128 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the summary of WP:N states that notable topics are those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, I would disagree. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is old news with a short shelf life, and notwithstanding the breathlessness of tone at the time, the scope and quality of coverage weren't impressive. A Google search reveals more hits for controversy generated by an English sculpture [1] At best this may merit a sentence in the University of Oregon's article. JNW (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like I said in the first nom two years ago, this was just notable as a cable news Outrage of the Day in the distant past and nothing more from a student publication usually happily ignored by most people, and hardly needed attention here in any way just because they drew Jesus like this. The picture of said cover wasn't in the article the first time and looks like something whipped up in MS Paint in five minutes. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a one-off student thing with no evidence of any lasting notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Failure to demonstrate lasting notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No more or less notable than the 2011 Mexican drug gang attack twitter hoax article. Sufficient third party coverage exists for both, and I have !voted accordingly. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well cited. National controversy. jorgenev (t|c|s) 00:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cited to what exactly? WorldNetDaily isn't exactly a source that shoots down the middle, and the other source is a blog from Michelle Malkin (at the time). That's it, nothing from the other side or neutral, outside of O'Reilly's segment. It was just a lame "for the lulz" moment ignored by everybody else who refused to give this story the time of day. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Student Insurgent, a student newspaper at University of Oregon is not notable.WP:N No circulation information is available on there web site [2] though the Newspaper does say it has been in publication for 23 years there is no way to determine the demographic reach of the paper as stated. Total student enrollment for the university [3] is approximately 23,000.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't going to bring this up as it sounded like kicking the dog, but the publication's Facebook page only has 26 likes. If that isn't being completely irrelevant to anyone at U of O, I don't know what is. Nate • (chatter) 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surprisingly this didn't generate "outrage" for a week in world-wide media. Probably would have been not worthy for inclusion even after a week (and nothing more) of world-wide outrage. WP:PERSISTENCE states "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" and this seems like such a case. I think the Piss Christ article is pretty good though. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2011 (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.