Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FuckFuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsense dictdef. RickK 22:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • And it's back as Fuckfuck. I've posted it for speedy delete. Why don't people get a clue? - Lucky 6.9 00:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why don't you stop biting new users? It appears to be created in good faith; I've recreated it, so it can be voted on here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a real esoteric programming language, and didn't have a page yet, so I made one. I apologize for the name, but hey, I didn't name it. And, eh, how do I stamp this with my name and the date? ^^; -- Ben-Arba
  • You sign with 4 tildas - and it certainly doesn't look like a speedy deletion candidate at the moment. Secretlondon 01:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Brainfuck and redirect, I don't think it adds enough to the language to justify its own article. Ben - to sign, type 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. —Stormie 01:15, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with the merge idea; if it's as similar to Brainfuck as it sounds, it doesn't need a separate article. (I am one who speedy-deleted it; seeing the note about the previous deletion and reading it quickly, I thought it was nonsense - my error.) (But what an assinine name; looks like a 'clever-geek' equivalent of getting a dumb tattoo that embarrasses you royally when you grow up!) - DavidWBrooks 01:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've had to restore this as well - can I suggest that people read the speedy deletion criteria next time? Thank you so much. Secretlondon 01:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've updated it with more explicit information. (pun intended) I disagree with the move to merge... adding its specifications to brainfuck would only degrade BF. (: Is it safe to assume the vfd is negative? Ben-Arba 02:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this one - the last one I saw was a candidate for deletion. It didn't have the lengthy info this one does. - Tεxτurε 03:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Esoteric programming languages are the computer nerd equivalent of micronations and antipopes. I'm sure somebody had a good weekend's entertainment making up FuckFuck. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal: bias. Deletion of an entry should not be based on a preconceived notion of whether "the computer nerd equivalent of micronations and antipopes" is notable or not. Go get rid of Micronation or Antipope. (: Ben-Arba 03:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for website. No useful content. Remarkable only for its use of naughty words, and people fall for it. I might have too, at the age of five or six. The mind boggles. Andrewa 10:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found some other sites on the internet that discuss it. newkai 11:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Vanity. Let's play spot the sockpuppet. Ambivalenthysteria 13:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir to Mindfuck after merge. Most of any useful article would be redundant to the other, so being more than redirect is counterproductive: even if content is kept (consider this on Talk:Mindfuck, not here), its slight chance of being useful shouldn't be obstructed by having to jump back and forth between pages to make sense of it. --Jerzy(t) 18:50, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • Another vote for merge + redirect, for same reasons previously stated. Mindspillage 18:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I maintain that it should be documented, despite its being a poorly-created replica of brainfuck. I've edited the note to that effect. I would also argue that, once one has learned brainfuck, there is no need to jump back to the brainfuck page to make sense of FuckFuck. Perhaps your confusion arises from your link to mindfuck? (: Ben-Arba 18:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. although a merge and redirect to brainfuck is ideal due to similarity, and notability issues. Also the article basically is about how it relates to brainfuck. —siroχo 01:37, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Deletion before merge/redir. :P Ben-Arba 04:22, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simply renaming Brainfuck commands does not constitute reason for a new article. Denni☯ 01:07, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)