Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckfrance

From 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.

IAR: The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm clsoing this early and nuking the article as consensus is very clear. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuckfrance

Delete. Just not seeing the encyclopedic value of this article, but maybe thats just me (and a few admins trigger happy on the speedy delete button with this page). I decided to post here for a rational discussion hopefully leading to a consensus (I'll be holding my breath for that...)—Gaff ταλκ 04:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I, on the mistaken assumption that this page was just a recreation of a properly deleted previous article due to the previous deletion before my own, support this AFD since it makes it official and if this is recreated then it can be properly speedied as per CSD. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete No claim to notability, apparent hate site and not especially encyclopedic. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn website. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, due to being non-notable and hateful. Mo0[talk] 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Use your judgement on the matter but I would recommend a template:deletedpage notice and a page protection for this page since there is clearly a high risk for recreation. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
After the appropriate time period has passed. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't mean to imply anything before the time has passed, I just was noting in case that this ends in delete. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dog's breakfast of a POV nn vanity page. --Fire Star 05:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 113,000 Google hits. So my "non-notable" reason is gone. I may reconsider my opinion. --Fire Star 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more a blog than anything else. Not notable and the article is unencyclopedic.MONGO 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vaity spew --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious reasons. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep lame attempt at censorship. It's dissapointing that so many experienced users would delete a page simply because they disagree with the subject. freestylefrappe 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be deleted because Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the article is completely unencyclopedic, not because of the subject. Censorship would be if the government shut down the fuckfrance.com web site. Wikipedia not having an article on them in no way censors them. --DavidConrad 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is incorporated into the article. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article on non-notable web forum; Wikipedia is not a web directory. --DavidConrad 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not I, or anyone else here, likes the content is irrelevant. The truth is that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this website is not notable at this time. Jacqui ★ 05:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a Keeper! The article is necessary. It's crucial! So many still don't know. There are tons of pictures!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.43.178 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You are over-excited. It's really not of great import.
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the article is not encyclopedic at all. Titoxd(?!?) 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Malcious Nazi-style chauvanism. Cognition 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, advertising. *drew 07:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hate rant, advertising-Dakota t e 07:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable: Alexa rank of 34,576. --Carnildo 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this rubbish -- Francs2000 09:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website = unencyclopedic. --Aquillion 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable ad. for a trashy site. Marcus22 11:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established by article. Demiurge 11:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pixeltoo 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because people oppose an unauthorised war started on false premises and later illegal incarceration and torture of innocent people doesn't mean they suddenly become a free target for insults. — JIP | Talk 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kiand 13:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while its Alexa ranking isn't that bad, the article fails to establish significance and contains POV in the last paragraph and speculation about its creator. Once that is gone, there's nothing substantial left to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice against notable, verifiable France-bashing websites. If there are any. android79 14:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and even if it was WP is not a directory. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment we deleted Fuck the South.Geni 14:28, 8 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.