Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Hole

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 speedy deleted (04:32, 21 August 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Fuck Hole" (attack page)) - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck Hole

Doesn't cite its sources; is probably abusive nonsense KeithD (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. Maybe Speedy as an attack? --TheMidnighters 08:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy with extreme prejudice. If you left in the verifiable content, it would be a blank page.Clair de Lune 08:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy please and thank you. Abusive and completely logically inconsistent with the Neal Boortz article besides. A. J. Luxton 09:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • He has used the term on his website and personal writings, how is it inconsisted with the article? -Wiffle0rz 09:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a neologism. I find it unpleasant as well, but that's beside the point. Sliggy 10:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. "Unpleasant"? Per the article it's affectionate! Tonywalton  | Talk 10:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it is true, it should be on his page, not a page by itself. Alf 12:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hi. I've just removed the speedy tag from this page. I hope you do not mind. If any of you have been following developments on the VfD page, the "undelete" process at VfU, and related pages at AN/I, you will know that there has been a great deal of controversy recently over the SD process. There are editors who monitor deletions and undelete articles that have been speedied, if in their opinion the article did not meet any SD criterion. This has happened even in cases where the most obvious hoaxes and similar nonsense were the subjects of the articles; i.e., you cannot count on common sense prevailing over a concern for "process." This has also occured the other way around: undeleted articles get re-deleted, then undeleted, and so on and so forth until all that is left is an unnecessarily acrimonious atmosphere and a bad taste in the mouth for all concerned. So we should all be careful with SD; if we're not, you can bet the house that the article will be dragged out far longer than it would with a normal VfD process. If you are going to speedy, make sure you know the criteria listed in WP:CSD. There are 8 General criteria, 7 Article criteria, 4 Redirect, and 3 each for Images, Categories, and User pages. I cannot see that Anything in G1-8 or A1-7 applies. The editor who SD tagged gave the reason that it is patent nonsense. But it is not. There is a page that explains patent nonsense, WP:PN; there are two criteria both of which are unmet by Fuck Hole.—Encephalon | ^ζ  13:09:24, 2005-08-19 (UTC)Note: there was a suggestion that this was a personal attack (on Boortz). It might qualify for A6 if so, but there is also a suggestion that the content of the article is true, ie. that Boortz actually believes this and has written it. I am not knowledgeable enough about this to know; Wiffle0rz, can you provide evidence that the claim is true? If it isn't there is a good case for A6. Of course, bottom line, Alf is absolutely right even if true and verifiable, this should go into the Boortz article.—Encephalon | ^ζ 
• Delete and redirect to Glory hole#Sexual usage. Pburka 13:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to cunt SchmuckyTheCat 05:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Article borders on libel unless documented. Otherwise, Merge with Neal Boortz if such an opinion is documented. PlainSight 14:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Update. I have placed the speedy tag on the article for contravention of CSD A6. User:Wiffle0rz has not responded to a request to document the claim. His actions, as documented in his appaling edit history, make it very likely that his claim is completely bogus. I searched google for any reference to +"Boortz" +"Fuck hole", and there are no applicable returns.—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:30:13, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic JoJan 19:05, 20 August 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.