292:), but writing a comprehensive neutral reference work. The Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy is such an enormous subject that it necessitates many articles (if only to make them loadable in a reasonable time for those of us with 300 baud modulators/demodulators), forcing us to write many spun out articles for simple organisational purposes. Until you forget "worthy/unworthy" and stop trying to impose your values on the reader, it'll be hard to see, but "Does having this article make Knowledge (XXG) a better reference work?" has a clear answer "yes". "Does this meet the usual guidelines for what's included?" has a clear answer "yes", and it is because these two are supposed to be the same question.
601:
worth of the O'Reilly show?—in other words, a useless and unacceptable citation. The reference cited in note 5 has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and note 6 cites the work of another blogger, though this one appears to be a "videoblogger," whatever that may be. I'd like to see some mainstream coverage, please.
237:
Uhm, it meets the GNG without difficulty. It's probably also worth familiarising yourself with other bits before quoting them. While NOT#NEWS is worth noting de temps en temp, it's not a be all and end all that needs to be applied mindlessly. The issue of routine vs. nonroutine coverage is clearly
514:
is the only hit on Google news, my yardstick for this kind of thing, and it's from the U of Oregon campus paper. Comparing this to the Danish cartoons is a bit specious, since those are well-covered in the news. This isn't, no matter what O'Reilly claims--of course, if he rants about it continuously
600:
I'm not seeing that it's much better sourced. Two blog reports (major blogs, admittedly) have been added to the references (notes 2 & 3), but their focus is on O'Reilly's reaction, not on the cartoon that is nominally the subject of the article. Note 4 is a reference to what? an entire year's
127:
Article covers single printing of a set of pictures of Jesus with an erect penis. This did not receive coverage outside of a single piece on WorldNetDaily and possibly local newspaper. Contested prod where the remover suggested that it was "interesting" and did not have a policy backed rationale.
256:
One blurb on WorldNetDaily certainly does not meet the GNG. It is not substantative nor significant. Seriously, you're trying to protect a reactionary blip on the radar. This is not wikijoke, this is an encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article it is related to, the
238:"would merit usual inclusion". Of course, one can look at the bigger goal, as say "Can we write a neutral, encyclopaedic article?" - here the answer is clearly yes (as we already have). "Is it a asset to the encyclopaedia?" - again, yes. So what's to delete for? Just
222:
Ooops, you forgot that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Never mind this article never reaching the requirements of the GNC.
283:. The WorldNetDaily story is substantial - not only that, but so substantial that one can't honestly and informedly argue otherwise. Subjects aren't about "worthiness" or "unworthiness" in whether or not they deserve an article on an ethical level - the
426:. A student creates a provocative cartoon and it is published by a student newspaper, it gets mentioned in World Net Daily, a conservative paper. Not every silly cartoon which gets mentioned by conservative bloviators needs an encyclopedia article.
331:
Why "citation needed?" All you have to do is look at the "In other languages" section. You'll see that it's also available in German, Simple
English, and Alemannic? If it's gotten coverage in more than one Knowledge (XXG), I'm pretty sure it's
287:
is whether or not having an article is a) possible and b) valuable to us. You might well feel it's stupid (and you're correct in that), but that's neither here nor there. We're not supposed to be trying to impose our values on readers (see
150:
among cable news and trying to rouse up some people, and which quickly flashed by. Every stupid thing some artist with a sophomoric sense of humor does to decipt Jesus like this thing doesn't need attention or an article here.
638:
Notable free speech controversy, extending over a considerable period. An absurd use of not news. Some of what's in the news is notable. The citations should of course be improved to be as specific as possible.
511:
615:
The O'Reilly coverage and the Media
Matters reaction constitutes significant coverage. Obviously note 4 is vague, but that's a problem with the article itself rather than the topic's notability.--
120:
394:
87:
82:
705:
91:
582:. Note that it is now much better sourced than when this deletion discussion started, and passes the notability threshold unambiguously.--
74:
258:
17:
443:
if people don't riot, pillage, and kill over your offensive cartoon, it's not as offensive as you'd like and not notable either.
257:
Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, but it is not worthy of a standalone article. Another possible merge location would be the
531:
Please keep in mind, that this story is almost 3 years old. Back in 2006 it has definitely reached substantial notability. --
731:
36:
378:
266:
228:
133:
716:
688:
667:
650:
624:
610:
591:
574:
549:
535:
524:
502:
481:
469:
452:
435:
409:
382:
368:
341:
326:
301:
270:
251:
232:
217:
192:
175:
137:
56:
730:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
570:
448:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
239:
78:
70:
62:
684:
374:
262:
224:
129:
477:
It has been on the O'Reilly Factor, which is one of the most watched TV "news" programs in the US. --
663:
658:
per nom this is hardly "totally notable" its just a news item. And we're not a newspaper archive.
566:
444:
166:
713:
620:
587:
532:
478:
333:
318:
405:
188:
183:
WP does not keep an archive of every editorial cartoon, and this should not be the exception.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
289:
709:
680:
545:
520:
431:
364:
676:
423:
352:
337:
322:
296:
246:
212:
701:
490:
356:
659:
606:
498:
465:
154:
697:
419:
201:
128:
Suggesting removal per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:NOTE (specifically the GNC).
646:
616:
583:
317:. The English Knowledge (XXG) isn't the only one with an article about this subject.
401:
359:, and other usual suspects. Step one does not equal notability. Step two does. -
184:
50:
351:. Some students publish a silly cartoon as a stunt. They attract attention from
108:
562:
541:
516:
427:
360:
293:
243:
209:
602:
494:
461:
242:
is left as an argument for deletion, and it's not compelling in the least.
641:
724:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
460:- coverage is of a single event with no lasting impression. --
275:
Please familiarise yourself with policies before quoting them.
373:
Care to back that up with sources? The article does NOT.
115:
104:
100:
96:
675:I would agree with Edison that this is a case of
515:this may change, but until then, out it must go.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
734:). No further edits should be made to this page.
395:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
540:It didn't leave a dent in the news archives.
8:
393:: This debate has been included in the
208:can't help but admit it's notable...
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
259:Controversial newspaper caricatures
24:
493:needed to establish notability.
1:
491:substantive, reliable sources
717:16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
689:02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
668:04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
651:00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
625:21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
611:21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
592:20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
575:20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
550:20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
536:19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
525:18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
503:17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
482:17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
470:17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
453:17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
436:16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
410:15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
383:15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
369:15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
342:17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
327:15:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
302:15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
271:15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
252:14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
233:14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
218:14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
193:12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
176:11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
138:09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
57:04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
146:Only notable for being the
751:
510:per, for instance, Deor.
200:- notability established
727:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
204:. Even those arguing
489:. Lacks the multiple
71:Jesus with erection
63:Jesus with erection
561:a totally notable
148:Outrage of the Day
44:The result was
412:
398:
173:
742:
729:
399:
389:
375:Kyaa the Catlord
299:
263:Kyaa the Catlord
249:
225:Kyaa the Catlord
215:
174:
169:
163:
162:
157:
130:Kyaa the Catlord
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
750:
749:
745:
744:
743:
741:
740:
739:
738:
732:deletion review
725:
361:Smerdis of Tlön
353:William Donohue
297:
247:
213:
167:
160:
155:
152:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
748:
746:
737:
736:
720:
719:
691:
670:
653:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
595:
594:
577:
567:Critical Chris
555:
554:
553:
552:
528:
527:
505:
484:
472:
455:
445:Carlossuarez46
438:
413:
387:
386:
385:
346:
345:
344:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
240:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
195:
178:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
747:
735:
733:
728:
722:
721:
718:
715:
714:Jack Merridew
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
669:
665:
661:
657:
654:
652:
648:
644:
643:
637:
634:
633:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
556:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
513:
509:
506:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
483:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
411:
407:
403:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:Bill O'Reilly
354:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
303:
300:
295:
291:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
255:
254:
253:
250:
245:
241:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
216:
211:
207:
203:
202:the usual way
199:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
177:
172:
170:
159:
158:
149:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:
135:
131:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
726:
723:
693:
672:
655:
640:
635:
579:
558:
507:
486:
474:
457:
440:
415:
390:
348:
314:
284:
280:
276:
205:
197:
180:
164:
153:
147:
143:
126:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
712:;) Cheers,
681:Pastor Theo
677:WP:NOT#NEWS
563:Free Speech
424:WP:NOT#NEWS
277:Substantive
420:notability
279:contrasts
704:sources (
660:JBsupreme
402:• Gene93k
706:O'Reilly
702:reliable
617:ragesoss
584:ragesoss
533:Raphael1
479:Raphael1
332:notable.
121:View log
698:Notable
290:WP:NPOV
281:trivial
185:Collect
168:chatter
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
673:Delete
656:Delete
565:issue.
542:Drmies
517:Drmies
508:Delete
487:Delete
458:Delete
441:Delete
428:Edison
418:Fails
416:Delete
261:list.
206:delete
181:Delete
144:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
334:SPNic
319:SPNic
285:point
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
700:per
694:Keep
685:talk
664:talk
647:talk
636:Keep
621:talk
607:talk
603:Deor
588:talk
580:Keep
571:talk
559:Keep
546:talk
521:talk
512:This
499:talk
495:Deor
475:Keep
466:talk
462:Whpq
449:talk
432:talk
422:and
406:talk
391:Note
379:talk
365:talk
349:Keep
338:talk
323:talk
315:Keep
294:Wily
267:talk
244:Wily
229:talk
210:Wily
198:Keep
189:talk
156:Nate
134:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
710:Fox
642:DGG
400:--
397:.
696:—
687:)
679:.
666:)
649:)
623:)
609:)
590:)
573:)
548:)
523:)
501:)
468:)
451:)
434:)
408:)
381:)
367:)
355:,
340:)
325:)
269:)
231:)
191:)
136:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
708:/
683:(
662:(
645:(
619:(
605:(
586:(
569:(
544:(
519:(
497:(
464:(
447:(
430:(
404:(
377:(
363:(
336:(
321:(
298:D
265:(
248:D
227:(
214:D
187:(
171:)
165:(
161:•
132:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.