Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the South

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the South

Non-notable website promotion. Tysto 21:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete suprisingly high alexa rating (200,000 around), still not notable enough though (11,000 googles) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  There are 10,000 googles for fuckthesouth.com but over 100,000 googles for the phrase "fuck the south", with virtually all referring to the essay on the website in question. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  "fuck the south" is a generic term, though, and if they link to the site then how come they don't register on a google for fuckthesouth.com? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  They don't link to the site. They just copy and paste the essay off the site. Google it and see for yourself. I haven't found one hit for "fuck the south" that didn't refer to this essay. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the author of the article. Fuckthesouth.com is very popular and often-referenced throughout the blogosphere. You wil find discussion of this essay on any blog dealing with U.S. politics.Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's relatively well known for the moment, but so are lots of Internet e-mail forwards and novelty websites, very few of which deserve any mention in an encyclopedia. What is this article going to say six months or a year from now, when the interest in this bile has died down and the website is defunct? "Briefly controversial rant against Southerners copied by many weblogs, some approving, some disapproving"? IMO, this kind of thing makes Wikipedia into an compedium of stuff-I-just-heard-about instead of a proper encyclopedia. --Tysto 02:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established. --Randy 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain at this time, because I am too disturbed by the website itself. I am from the South. The website that the article refers to is a hate-filled misinformed rant directed against a small percentage of southerners, the ones Hollywood uses as cliché villains. Yes, there are Bubbas who own assault rifles and fly the Confederate battle flag (and might not recognize any of the real Confederate flags). They are a minority. This is the Bible Belt so there are people who think they are Christians preaching hate against homosexuals. Those two groups alone do not make a majority, but voting with other conservatives and some moderates get a slight majority. Nationally, in the 2004 presidential race Bush received 50.7% and Kerry received 48.7% of the of the popular vote. To assume that everyone in the South thinks the same way based on which party wins elections is just wrong. The web site just is another divisive factor in the United States, based on regionalism instead of some other prejudice. Ask yourself as you think about this AfD - is notoriety the same thing as notability? I will vote later, after I have had some time to think and to review the Wikipedia article for NPOV and to review policies. -WCFrancis 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, posting a rant on the interweb doesn't make it notable. Gazpacho 00:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems notable, I have heard a lot about it after the election. Guettarda 01:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one controversial website is hardly encyclopedic, also swearwords on Wikipedia should not be encouraged, I am fairly broadminded myself but some people could be offended. PatGallacher 02:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on lack of notability alone; uninterested in content of web site or perceived offensiveness. -- MCB 08:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's offensive and surprisingly poorly written, but this site is notable. The article doesn't seem to be vanity. Keep Vizjim 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's absolutly not vanity (or "promotion" as the VfD nominator worded it). I have nothing to do with fuckthesouth.com. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Taco Deposit did a good job on keeping the article here NPOV. Rant itself is quite stale; that is it was posted a couple of days after the election and there appears to be no new material since. Why someone is so filled with hate as to pay to keep it up is a mystery. However, I feel that documentation of divisive elements in the US itself is notable. Weak Merge with Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article would be something I would prefer to keeping it as separate article. -WCFrancis 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide#Polarization would be a better alternate for merge. WCFrancis 20:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems nn.  Grue  12:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought at first it might be useful as an example of a hate group on the internet, but it's really just a rant by someone wanting attention.

  above vote contributed by Doyceb (talk • contribs): edit #5. —Phil | Talk 12:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Google is not necessarily a good measure of notability. The article is about something interesting and IMHO establishes notability sufficiently. Bear in mind "notable" does not equate to "I've heard of it before". —Phil | Talk 12:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete when it gets a decen't alexa rank (or simlar from a simular service) we can reconsider. Geni 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Was enormously popular just after the election. - David Gerard 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable, encyclopedic, NPOV, interesting ➥the Epopt 13:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep From the article it seems to me that it is perfectly notable gkhan 15:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable political rant, as mentioned by others here. Future researchers will know the depth of the divide in the 2004 election by the presence and popularity of things like this. Would not object to a merge. Unfocused 15:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable hate-group website. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hate-group site. Being discussed by bloggers doesn't make something notable. —Cleared as filed. 17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and popular. Gamaliel 18:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in its own right. Might deserve a mention in a larger article somewhere. --Carnildo 21:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article establishes this website's notability well enough, IMO, and in any event lack of notability alone is not a particularly good reason to delete an article. Bryan 02:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and lame. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, run-of-the-mill shock/hate site — C Maylett 06:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:02, 24 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.