Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck you and die

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck you and die

A subforum of a forum? Not nearly notable enough for Wikipedia. --Etaonish 01:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

*delete -- as someone who regularly posts there, it's not even a very good description of the forum -- 24.118.254.142

  • Delete. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Do not in any way justify any further articles on an internet forum that is not all that significant, anyway. Practically every message board (catering to a certain audience) has a forum like this. It's not notable in any way. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Generic opinion. silsor 04:22, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • ANNIHILATE. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:28, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • Comment Not sure why I thought this was so funny but I did ;). --ShaunMacPherson 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, FFS for the love of God. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not only not notable, it almost sounds like original research. Simon 05:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pre-adolescent nonsense. --Wetman 06:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utterly pointless, useless waste of energy. – ClockworkSoul 06:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. SA cruft at its worst. Rhobite 07:02, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too large, and largely unverifiable, since its access is restricted to paying members. --Slowking Man 07:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, so what? I don't have the means to verify most facts on Wikipedia, but that's not a good reason to delete most articles. Twinxor 11:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Carnildo 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic topic, SA cruft. --Andylkl 08:03, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unencyclopaedic SA cruft. Thryduulf 11:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hilarious -- what I've read of it, at least. Alas, it should be deleted or merged. It occurred to me that, as a diversion, perhaps there could be a separate feature/article on Wiki in the six degrees of separation mode, where members could randomly post Wiki links for two seemingly utterly unrelated articles and invite other members to establish a connection between the two within a set number of Wiki links, utilizing info contained in the articles (or not) -- a good way to impel some of us who may find ourselves stuck in content ruts around the site; an interesting/different way to be stimulated intellectually to see new connections; have a little fun; learn a lot; maybe occasion the beefing up of old articles; and, perhaps, spark interest in creating completely new articles on related subject matter. Yeah, yeah. I know this isn't the subject at hand, but I didn't know where else to offer this up. I didn't know about Something Awful Forums before now. Does something like this already exist? (Please direct comments to my (Talk) page. Tx.) deeceevoice 12:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) Six degrees? Never mind. Uder Thryduulf just pulled my coat. :-) Will check it out when I have time. Peace. deeceevoice 13:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Mikkalai 18:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The forum itself is notable, but a subforum off of this is not. Inter\Echo 16:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the obvious reasons. Miss Pippa 18:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to merge. Postdlf 23:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable because it was the first of it's kind. Now most forums immitate it. It should be noted that Etonish has a notable vendetta against the SA forums, where his VfD failed. Trampled 23:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "First of it's kind"? Forums have had secret subforums since the BBS days. "Now most forums imitate it"? I think it's the other way around. --Carnildo 23:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The fact that it is secret is irrelevant. It is the style of humour and satire that was started there that's been immitated. Trampled 01:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe Jonathan Swift predates "FYAD" by one or two days. Rhobite 01:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • Please point out where I said that FYAD created satire... Trampled 01:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I laugh at your claim of me harboring some sort of vendetta against SA. This isn't exactly a close vote: there's hardly any controversy here. Everyone except you agrees on removing/merging the article.--Etaonish 09:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • His VfD didn't fail, in that he got what he wanted. Twinxor 11:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Fire Star 06:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Heaven forbid Wikipedia contain an in-depth article on a topic that some people are not interested in. Keep. Twinxor 11:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is not toilet paper either. We have standards and an article like this is simply too specific and inherently POV for the site.--Etaonish 15:31, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Inherently POV? The article is about a real website. Certainly, there are some facts about it which are objectively true. Twinxor 19:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Really? List them. I can think of two: The forum name is FYAD, it is a popular subforum of Something Awful. Anything beyond that is POV and/or useless information.--Etaonish 23:10, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • The unique features of FYAD, the style of posting and humor, and the forum history can all be elaborated upon. Obviously there is room for POV in there, but there exist facts everyone can agree on. Twinxor 06:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I refuse to even continue this debate. This page is a clear target for the trash can. You have to assume good faith here, Twinxor: we have no vendetta against SAF. When so many Wikipedians agree, perhaps you should pay attention to their opinion.--Etaonish 07:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
              • None of these statements address my point. Please consider the following articles: Begging the question, Straw man, and Bandwagon fallacy. Twinxor 08:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I refer you to the much more relevant Wikipedia policy article Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. In addition, I fail to see how I beg the question or strawman your arguments. I've made my view perfectly clear: An article about a subforum of a forum is too small and too inherently POV to belong in Wikipedia.--Etaonish 16:58, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
            • So what does FYAD have that a million other web forums don't? --Carnildo 07:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge a tiny fraction of this content (say, a paragraph) with Something Awful Forums and Redirect. —Stormie 11:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Fuck_you_and_die_6909.html"