Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FUTURE at very least. Also, most of the sources are based on Twitter, blogs, and interviews of the involved parties. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, unsurprisingly, as the first person to revert one of the four attempts so far to get this deleted (with a different rationale each time, natch). One could maybe make a tenuous case for WP:NOTNEWS but you're not making it. WP:FUTURE has nothing to do with this and I don't think it means what you think it means. Given the widespread coverage of this particular sign, as opposed to the protests in general, I don't think it's appropriate for merging to a more general article on the protests, while your weird claim about the sources is just bizarre - since when has "based on a interview with the creator" been grounds for disallowing a source regarding a work? Mogism (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interviews, press releases, blogs, personal posts on social media have always been considered PRIMARY and therefor not RS. Technical 13 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for "interviews are not considered a reliable source", since it's not mentioned in WP:PRIMARY and you appear to have just made it up? Some of the sources are blogs, yes, but if you seriously think (for example) Svenska Dagbladet and The Guardianaren't a reliable source you're seriously barking up the wrong tree. Mogism (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Interviews are mentioned in footnote 3 on the page containing WP:PRIMARY. The point is that, whereas interviews can in some cases be used to support particular statements in articles, they are relatively worthless in establishing a topic's notability. Deor (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, (perhaps surprisingly?) I did decline the speedy deletion because it was not a clear attack page, but I don't think the article should be kept. I take little issue with the sources being based on blog/twitter/etc. posts from the subjects, but I do agree with T13 that this article is premature. It appears to be a pretty clear news article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep though I see nothing wrong with merging it to a general article about the protests and leaving a redirect to a relevant section. I doubt that this sign will have a huge shelf life. Of course, if duplicated and used by others, I will be proven wrong about the shelf life. There are sufficient WP:RS to make it notable and verifiable. No thunderbolts have arrived, so it can't be blasphemous. Fiddle   Faddle  19:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to it being merged into such a thing... This is an "Articles for Discussion " and not "Articles for Deletion " so that would be a fair compromise to me. I just don't think it is worthy of its own article. Technical 13 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is one incident, based on something written on a young lady's placcard.  It's WP:NOTNEWS at the very least.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ...  19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N(E) Single event with to lasting notability. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As amusing as this is, it certainly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. It's probable that one or two sentences could be preserved in a more general article, though that would be at the editorial discretion of editors on such a page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - yet another wonderful example of why WP is NOTNEWS. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 23:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - when a shock/offensive placard such as this is paraded at a major demonstration it will inevitably get widespread media coverage. This is why, for news events, we need evidence of a lasting or broader effect to justify an article. This appears to have neither. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N does not include fad-of-day-which-goes-viral. This kind of new item is the raison d-être for WP:NOTNEWS—come back in a year when secondary sources have done an analysis of the significance of the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty cut and dry. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per notnews and Single Event. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, obviously. I could note a whole assortment of other reasons why a 14-year-old girl's sign talking about her vagina is not a good thing to have an article about on Wikipedia.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of lasting significance fails WP:NOT/WP:NEVENT. Is it getting cold in here ?  LGA talk  edits   04:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was expecting that it would fail NOTNEWS, but actually reading the policy, journalism is about using wikipedia for first-hand reports, clearly not applicable; news reports seems to be concerned with routine coverage of announcements, sports, and celebrities, while this article is about a specific, non-routine event that has received international coverage; who's who doesn't apply, as it's not about a person; and diary is completely irrelevant. Including FUTURE just baffles me, as this article says absolutely nothing about any event yet to happen. The article has several Reliable Sources including international news organizations, so it looks like it's passing every objection raised in the nomination. There's one source that should maybe get axed, but other than that, this looks pretty good, at least on all the nomination criteria. Sorry LGA, it's plenty warm around here. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the sign/placard held by protesters, seem pretty routine and minuscule to me. Technical 13 (talk)
 * Delete Wasn't "Change" a placard that we saw in recent elections? (And I'm sure there was lots of RS that talked about the "Change" campaign.) If millions of such placards don't deserve (and wouldn't get) an article, why does this one?  – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Ansh666 06:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It's crazy to have an entire article based on one protest sign. This is a slippery slope that would justify articles for hundreds of semi-humorous protest signs. If you keep this page, why not keep one for every other sign strikes an editor as funny? I did a quick survey and no one I asked had heard of this before. While this is anecdotal, I don't think it meets notability standards. It seems like the main reason people want to keep it is because it is because the language is shocking to more conservative readers. I don't believe in censorship but I also think keeping an article just because it is provocative is a flimsy reason for inclusion. Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really really don't think this fails NOTNEWS, and I find the arguments in favor of deletion unpersuasive. But I also don't think we need an article on one protest sign. Since this sign is documented and has been commented upon, perhaps there's another article into which we could insert some of this information? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a protest over the bill that followed the one Wendy Davis helped block with her epic filibuster. Honestly, though, I would not support a straight merge as I think a very brief mention of this controversy in an article on the legislation is all that can be justified and do not like the idea of needlessly preserving this sort of content when associated with a minor.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: (1) Not wp:NOTNEWS nor is it wp:FUTURE, it confirms Notability, there is significant coverage in reliable sources around the world, Sweden, India, UK, France, Australia that don't just mention the event in passing but critically analyse it from various angles,(a) charges of child abuse (b) religion (c) women's rights. The Guardian gave its platform to one of those involved to defend his case. Covered by The Guardian, The Daily Caller, Boing Boing, Salon, Daily Kos, News Corp Australia, Svenska Dagbladet, XOJane, Daily Bhaskar. (2) I share The Devil's Advocate's concerns, however the child is under parental guidance while being a part of this protest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about charges of child abuse, religion, or women's rights, it's about a sign/placard that was held up in a protest. If it was truly an article about the Texas Abortion bill, and there was a fair amount of lasting coverage, then we wouldn't be here. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about reaction to the legislation that is seen as an intrusion into their rights based on religious doctrine. It is about how the reaction was perceived by others and the reverberation that the reaction received. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article title and lead in to the article strongly disagree with you. Like I said above, I wouldn't be opposed to this being a section in an article about the bill or about protests in general, but it does not qualify for its own article. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) When I write that the article is about reaction to the legislation, I am referring to the said placard, the title of the article. (2)The article briefly discusses the various reactions to the placard. Where is the alleged disagreement? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vanisaac and Yogesh Khandke. Not really routine news, so it passes WP:NOTNEWS. -- cyclopia  speak!  12:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very laudable and I'd be proud of her if she were my daughter, but not every tiny little news speck is encyclopedic, no matter how broad the coverage on the temporary radar screen of our twitter culture. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is worth maybe a couple sentences in a larger article about the protests. We do not need articles on every individual protest sign that news agencies find temporarily interesting. Lady  of  Shalott  13:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per LadyOfShalott and Drmies' explanations. I too would think that it would be nice to see this mentioned in a couple of sentences in a larger article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2013 (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.