Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten


 * 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 of the debate was Keep  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 10:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten

 * Delete. This is really not notable at all and it is not Wikipedia's job to lend fame and credibility to every silly joke that lands in someone's email box.  Whoever wants this information here should make it a separate web page, and wikipedia can link to there as an example of Internet hoaxes or something.  But it really is not encyclopedic in any meaningful sense.  I think it's funny too, but come on. csloat 21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep or merge. I disagree&mdash;this image is hugely popular. Brighterorange 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is definitely noteworthy! If you haven't heard of this you haven't been online.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm personally against listing every internet meme out there on Wikipedia, but I've nominated less significant ones that have survived, so this one's a keeper. O bli (Talk) 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable internet phenomenon. (A merge may be appropriate, and I am quite willing to consider that possibility) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. It is a very notable internet phenomenon as previously mentioned.  And, it's not likely to fade away in the near future.  --That Guy, From That Show! 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, merging would necessitate losing too much information. --Malthusian (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to previous AfD discussion resulting in a comfortable keep consensus and no delete votes in this one apart from the nominator's so far. In the nominator's defence, that AfD discussion isn't linked to from the article's talk page as seems usual. --Malthusian (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I hadn't seen the previous discussion or I probably would not have listed it with that many "keep" votes already. I did look for it.  I think a few people here have suggested a merge to a page about internet jokes; I hope that happens.  Having a full article about a silly joke seems to decrease the credibility of wikipedia.--csloat 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that silliness = unencyclopaedic. We have very valuable articles on flat earth, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the duck-billed platypus... :-) --Malthusian (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a dead issue but I have to respond to your examples - flat earth and FSM are not just internet phenomena, as silly as they may be, and they are more widespread and significant, and the platypus is a real animal.--csloat 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Back to simple keep as someone other than the nominator has voted delete. --Malthusian (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. It should also be noted that it was up for deletion in July 2005 and kept by a overwhelming margin. Punkmorten 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, and the nominator really should have noted that this has already survived AfD. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable internet phenomenon. Englishrose 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This ridiculous internet meme just went on forever ... I was getting these emails for years.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL ... and thanks to keeping this on wikipedia you and others will continue to get this crap for years to come. should we have separate wikipedia entries for the spam we get too?--csloat 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the individual piece of spam becomes so widespread and so very well known as to become a phenomenon that can use an explanation, I don't see why not. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per recent keep. I've added oldafdfull link to previous AFD to the talk page (apparently the title had a real ellipsis character instead of "...").  Csloat, if you would be kind enough to withdraw the nomination, we can save everybody from having to spend time voting on this :).  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 02:43Z 
 * alright alright, I lose, but you all spent the time and voted already, so theres not much I can do... have fun with your kitty porn ;)--csloat 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for all reasons mentioned above. There doesn't seem to be any point continuing this vote. Scott Gall 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above Werdna648T/C\@ 10:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep i mean all though there are a lot of valid points to consider, this article is very informative so there is no real reason to keep voting on this issue. ;)--csloat] --comment actually written by [[User:172.198.117.28|172.198.117.28 --Malthusian (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The image depicted is unsourced and should be deleted as well. Once the image is gone then this article becomes non-notable. Atrian 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. The image's copyright status does need to be evaluated. I think it could possibly be considered a public domain image, considering that it has circulated the Net as many times as it has with no fuss about copyright, but IANAL, and don't fully understand copyright law anyway. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope: under the Berne copyright convention, you don't need to defend a copyright to maintain your rights. But the faior use case for using the image is very strong indeed, and when it comes to legal action, judges weigh up harm done by violation, which in this case would be nothing at all. --- Charles Stewart 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I have tagged the image as . I don't know if there is a better appropriate rationale for it, and if there is, that should be corrected.
 * In other news, I really don't think it was appropriate for Atrian to tag the image as no license, fail to leave an edit summary, and mark the edit as minor. Really, really sneaky. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a huge thing in the virtual world. As big as Leeroy Jenkins. __earth 12:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I'm getting extremely tired of seeing notable internet memes put up here, too. --badlydrawnjeff 14:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I'm a meme-killer but this one of all the memes out there has built a critical mass. FCYTravis 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been a fixture on different internet forums (including one I admin) for many years (well, "many" relative to an internet phenomenon). Honestly, some of you nominators need to either learn what the under-30 crowd knows, act your age and/or research the internet memes y'all hate so much  --Bobak 22:58, 13 January 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.