Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the close was challenged by the nominator; I've given my full rationale here. ansh666 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that it has also been nominated by the creator for Did You Know here. If the nomination is successful, and the article is not deleted in the meantime, it will appear on the front page but without an image as fair use images are not allowed in DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making no comment on the respective merits of this AfD, an article can not appear on DYK while an AfD is in progress. Harrias talk 12:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game has caused uproar noted by a major Indonesian newspaper '''tAD''' (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This means the game has coverage in sources broader than simply games review sites, putting it more notable than many console games which are only covered on review sites '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete for a while. Wait a week or so. It is likely to be mentioned very soon in other sources than Vice, and not only as a meme... Zezen (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. This thing already has sufficient (international) coverage for an article now, and based on how extremely over the top it is, that fame is very unlikely to fade completely. Or to put it more directly: this stupid software is probably going to make further news by actually costing lives. (I am afraid it's also likely to play into the hands of religious fundamentalists because rejection of this is one thing that basically all Muslims -- and also all serious Christians -- can agree on. But that's not relevant for whether Wikipedia should report on it. After all, Wikipedia also has articles on criminals.) But to reiterate: The notability is already there. I am just arguing why this will probably not be seen differently in retrospect 10 years from now.
    Now the images are a different matter. Not every article needs an illustration, and there is precedent for censorship for purely practical concerns such as endangering lives or just extreme indecency or sheer stupidity. Example: I once happened to be around when someone uploaded a detailed photo of a woman producing a turd. Taken from below. Removing that without discussion was in a way censorship, but was absolutely necessary and totally uncontroversial. I think the images on this article have a similar status. While nobody should feel revolted just for seeing a normal body function from an unusual perspective, this just doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. The typical reaction by Muslims, including the nice, normal and tolerant majority, but also by many other adherents of monotheistic religions will be similar. As an atheist I don't feel like that, but respecting it is still the right thing to do and is basically on the same level as not urinating in churches.
    I uninstalled or forgot how to use the scripts necessary to properly propose something for deletion, and I am not going to try doing this by hand. But I suggest that someone should propose the images for deletion. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's an image of a work — the same as Piss Christ or KKK posters or Nazi propaganda. A user who accesses this article would expect to see such an image, it's in its only acceptable place. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the only place where we even have to argue about the images, but even here they're not needed. The other things you mention have way higher notability and cultural/historical significance -- so far. (They are also each individual artifacts in a way that screenshots are not, although the entire piece of software is.) Hans Adler 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sam Walton asked for the sources that establish notability. Though some people don't like it, it's well established that notability is not related to the language in which the source is published. E.g., what is notable in Albania and in Albanian, is a priori notable for the English Wikipedia. One of the sources currently on the article is in the game review section of es:eldiario.es, an online newspaper in Spain. Another is in the global news section of the online edition of Republika, an Indonesian newspaper with a primarily Muslim readership. Yet another is in Vice, a Canadian magazine. (Fortunately the other established newspapers and magazines available online appear to be too responsible to report about this -- nothing good will come of it.) The remaining sources seem to be the typical mix of internet resources. Although this is only indirectly relevant, two of them have sufficient notability to have their own articles in either English+German or Spanish+Catalan: gulli.com and es:MeriStation. Hans Adler 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this game is garnering a lot of attention and I've seen a few reliable sources already mention it, more sources will probably come in too. Kymako (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the above keep voters: Can you provide some of the sources which establish notability? There are only three in the article currently and a google search isn't showing up any more. I suspect this may generate some coverage within the week so I'll refrain from voting right now, but without more than there currently is I'll be voting delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's predictable that if the article is deleted at this stage, it will be recreated when the game receives more attention and a backlash is provoked. Maybe the article should be transferred to user space for a time? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:N with the 3 instances of coverage noted. Wikipedia is a listing of every offensive creation that gets discussed by 3 writers. Edison (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify The article should be transferred to user space for the time being, per my reasoning given above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Like Zezen said above, I think it's a bit too early to tell whether it should get the boot. I'd give it a little more time before making a final decision. lurkaccount (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not keep articles in anticipation of future notability (especially when the existence of an article can affect the topic's future notability). At the time of article creation, and at the moment (coverage by Vice and two other blogs, and article in Indonesian paper), it does not meet notability standards. Magedq (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh...while I would agree with this in most cases, I don't know if it really applies here, or at least I don't think it should. This sort of seems like something that's being captured mid-exposion, like you just know it's going to turn into something bigger than it has already become in almost no time flat.
      Then again WP has never been that good at documenting current event-type stuff such as this...maybe it should be put on hold, idk. lurkaccount (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is how much Wikipedia will contribute to this becoming notable. A lot of sources might only write on this that the information, instead of being scattered over random blogs, and papers in other languages, is instead on Wikipedia - with useful game play screenshots (not found in more reputable sources). Wikipedia having one of the only (English) articles on this game, is currently playing an active role in the development of this topic.Magedq (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vice magazine, which is in English, and the Indonesian newspaper have solved the screenshot problem intelligently by chosing a "select animal" screen from which the visual style and the offensive potential of the software become sufficiently clear because the rest is easily filled in by the imagination. If the Vice article isn't pulled, I don't share your optimism that deleting the Wikipedia article can prevent anything. Hans Adler 13:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see what you mean, but I don't think its presence on Wikipedia will really have that much outside influence in the long run. It's gonna spread either way. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, seeing as more reliable sources have been found and more are sure to be found in the very near future, I don't really see a need to delete the article as of right now. lurkaccount (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage in reliable sources and public attention. --Dezidor (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, while the subject has some notability, it hasn't been picked up by any major news outlet, let alone a video game website. While Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, that doesn't mean we should wait for things to happen. --Soetermans. T / C 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, 'fraid due to the subject matter of the game it's unlikely to be reported on by major news outlets until something they have to report on goes down. That's one of the aspects of Wikipedia's notability policy I've always had a problem with, when Wikipedia can't report on something just because the media at large is unwilling to report on it.
      I wouldn't mind if this is deleted so long as it's allowed to be recreated when its notability is more "CRYSTAL", I just don't think it's necessary.
      Also - I personally think the coverage it has already is enough to call for an article, even if it is being under-reported. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Three days of news coverage does not demonstrate long-term notability. It's too soon for a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Coverage by Vice News, Republika, and The Epoch Times (not currently in the article, but here) is sufficient to meet GNG in my view. Regarding the gameplay image, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material. But even that aside I'm concerned that the caption contains OR. How do we know which option the player has selected? -Thibbs (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture makes reasonably clear what is happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a naive question, but from the angle depicted how can you tell the difference between anal sex with a pig and vaginal sex with a pig? Might the image not even depict a neutral pre-coital condition before the player has selected anything? Wouldn't we need some (reliable) source to back up the claim that "Muhammad [is engaged in] anal sex with a pig"? It might help to establish context if we can find a RS that provides commentary on that specific non-free image. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen videos of the game. Vaginal coitus is done in the missionary position to all animals (obviously not to the men), and anal from that behind position. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion that would be better held on the article's talk page, if the article is in fact kept. The more important issue is that minor problems of this kind are not a reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From The Almightey Drill's response my suspicions concerning WP:OR seem to have been fully justified, but FreeKnowledgeCreator makes a good point that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion based on the image's caption. In fact, let the closer take note that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion at all. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great game. Certainly should have it's own page. It is actually a lot of fun and a turn on. There is no genuine reson to remove this page, besides the fact that some find it offensive. I find a lot of pages on Wikipedia offensive, but they need to be there to describe the world we live in. This game is part of that world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.108 (talk • contribs) 20:10, February 12, 2015
    • Hi @199.7.159.108:, please note that we're not debating whether or not it's a "great game" and the nominator doesn't say it is offensive, we're discussing whether or not it is notable enough to have its own article. If we would come to the conclusion that it isn't notable, then that actually would be a good reason to delete the article. --Soetermans. T / C 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I find Hans Adler's rationale compelling, and as Thibbs points out, this is getting international attention. Even if this has not attracted much coverage in the Western World, Wikipedia aims to have an worldwide scope, and the sources show international coverage in well known publications, even though some of those sources aren't in English. Eddymason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep, notability has been proven. Notable, reliable and verifiable sources have reported on the game. --Soetermans. T / C 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets GNG based on the sources in the article alone. This is a game, not a person or an event; as such, it doesn't need X days of news coverage to be considered notable. The game may be disgraceful, and the images may be questionable... but that has no relevance to the notability of the game itself, which is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to news coverage and inherent situational hilarity. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I noticed that it caused a fair amount of upset in Indonesia, where major newspapers published critical op-eds about it. 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This game has enough coverage in reliable sources. Also here is another article about the game from a Swedish online magazine.213.114.144.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith. And Also pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015&oldid=1138102214"