Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck You and Die (Something Awful Forum)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fuck You and Die (Something Awful Forum) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to delete the article.

  • Delete - I voted Keep on the Something Awful Forums VfD, but this is overdoing it. One writeup for the entire forums suffices, and despite the Something Awful Forums article bursting at the seams, I feel that Wikipedia would not be greatly improved by the inclusion of an entire SA forums category. --Jonathan Drain 01:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this page really nessasary? I think its a joke. Delete. Oven Fresh 00:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it is real, it doesn't need its own article. RickK 00:14, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a joke. Something Awful Forums. And it needs its own article becos Something Awful Forums is getting too big.
(editorial FYI: this is an anonymous comment from 81.153.165.114) --ExplorerCDT 00:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
further editorial FYI - this is already described (in rather less than essay-like detail) on Something Awful Forums, which itself deserves to be taken out and shot. We don't need a description of every forum on SA anywhere. Not on these articles, not in the SAF article. It should be patently obvious on the site itself. If it isn't, then Wikipedia is not the place to cover for the webmaster's fuckups. Chris 02:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even think Something Awful should have its own article. Wikipedia isn't a directing service or a list of websites, if someone wants that...Google is only a few keystrokes away. --ExplorerCDT 00:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Something Awful is a pretty well-known website and probably deserves something of an article, perhaps with a mention of the forums, but the forums certainly don't each deserve their own article. if people really care, they can go to the frickin' web site clara 03:05, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been trying to get rid of the fancruft inherent in the SA forums articles for a long time. See the Talk: Something Awful Forums and note that some random anonymous user simply ended all discussion and created these pages, without even linking them or shortening the original article. --Etaonish 01:00, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Off Topic Comment: Why is it that when you try to get rid of this fancruft, every Magic Card nerd, Pokemon brat, Star Wars zitface and Trekkie geek come out of the woodwork? It's like inbred albino hicks coming out of their trailers during a full moon. Why has every noble, laudable attempt to curb fancruft failed? We need a crusade! Our own anti-fancruft intifada! --ExplorerCDT 01:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Brings the flamers out of their holes, too... --L33tminion | (talk) 05:55, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the latter isn't true, because they had deleted the info out of the original article, but I reverted their deletions when I listed these. RickK 01:01, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Way to go for flaming my hobby and me, ExplorerCDT. Next time you feel the need to state against funcruft you don't need to insult everyone who likes them... Oven Fresh 01:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Stereotyping or not...you know it's true. --ExplorerCDT 01:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm a brat because I like Pokemon? Explain. Oven Fresh 01:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Did he say that? I think not. I read "Pokemon brats" as "brats with a fascination for Pokemon". There are those with reason that have an obsession with Pokemon, and then there are the brats (rather like the first-years at the front of the bus arguing over whose card just fell on the floor, or, in this case, arguing that every minute detail of their hobby, right down to the colour of socks they wear while playing, needs to be detailed on WP). Chris 02:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • Yeah, Oven Fresh has gone to the hysterical lengths of vandalizing my Talk page with accusations of "racism" because I said "Pokemon brats." I delete, he/she reposts...one more time before I report him/her. --ExplorerCDT 02:21, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • I didn't vandalize your page, buddy. Look up "vandalize", okay? I left a comment.
                  • You did, and I recommended you for punishment. What is your fetishistic attachment with vandalism and harassment this evening. The more you respond, the more inclined the powers that be will be to block you for a few days. --ExplorerCDT 02:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                    • I'm not going to be banned because I didn't do anything wrong. If someone called you an idiot, and you responded, WITHOUT doing anything wrong or getting any revenge of any kind, and not deleting any texts from your page and only adding my own, would you consider that requiring a ban? If anyone should be banned its you, although not rate now, since you didn't vandalize either. Also, I'd like to see the reccomendation page. Oven Fresh 02:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete
left by 209.36.57.61
  • Delete or redirect to Something Awful. -Sean Curtin 01:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but prefer redirect over delete. Simple not notable enough. ClockworkTroll 03:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft. What, is Something Awful going to try and claim Photoshop as their invention next? Yeesh. Lord Bob
  • Delete. Forum-as-center-of-universe vanity. (I see a lot of message boards. This is not unique.) I don't see what fancruft has to do with it, but I recommend taking a deep breath and going out for ice cream. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Good advice, I must say. Lord Bob 02:56, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The girl I love always tells me "without ice cream, life would be darkness and chaos." --ExplorerCDT 03:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I personally would rather see the article rewritten in a more neutral tone, if in fact the content is known in a particular subculture, or rather, underground culture. I suggest a serious scrub. Christopher Mahan 01:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC).

  • Delete: "Subculture" in this case means "whoever goes there." Glad the kids are having fun, but when that subculture does something other than talk about itself endlessly, it will have become notable. Wikipedia is not a web guide, though we might discuss the most important websites. However, we are by no means under any circumstances a forum guide. That's far beneath a website coverage, and there is no excuse for articles on forums. Geogre 02:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is nothing noteworthy about this forum for anyone other than those who use it. There is no purpose in listing information about every insignificant website on the net. Rje 03:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Welcome to Something Awful, the new Dartmouth. Ambi 03:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need this level of detail on a single forum. Not notable outside of the site. — Gwalla | Talk 03:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete forum cruft. Gazpacho 03:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wyllium 04:17, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Delete squash 06:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) I find the article offensive just by even looking at the title
  • Delete. jni 15:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Lst27 (talk) 00:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 02:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Something Awful Forums from whence it came. A"shii"baka ✎ 21:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Sillydragon 05:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Considering all of this information is also on the main Something Awful Forums page, should it be deleted from there as well? In other words, could you clarify as to whether you object against the content or the fact that it's a new page.--Etaonish 03:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Greetings again, Etaonish. Personally, as a quality-obsessed nitpicking perfectionist, I'm against FYAD having its own entry here (one SA Forums writeup is enough), and given the great length this FYAD article goes to, I'd avoid merging it with the original SA Forums entry which is already overfull. I am, however, for keeping the SA Forums writeup, but I still think it could use a little pruning (I'll see if I can get around to doing that some time over the next few weeks).

Was going to recommend the Something Awful Forums page for vfd, and then learned it already had been last month. Why can't we get rid of this sh*t. Most of the votes here are for delete. (15 to 1, by my quick count) If everyone who voted here, voted for delete there, it would probably work. I agree that this stuff doesn't belong, and like Chris's comment above, if the webmaster didn't make it self-explanatory, he should waste space here trying to explain himself. --ExplorerCDT 04:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Comment: My recollection was that the Something Awful Forums page lost VfD. However, we have a tremendous backlog on the VfD/Old page. Some new blood has volunteered to go after the backlog. There have been instances where admins have made extremely questionable decisions about consensus, and the people who clear out the weeds sometimes do the controversial ones last, but I think the article still exists because of the backlog (yes, we are that backed up; if I could understand the arcane instructions on the deletion procedures page, I'd help out) rather than the vote going its way. Geogre 04:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This page should be deleted for the reason that the SA Forums warrants one, and only one writeup. I don't recall the page losing VfD, at least not with the unanimous vote we're seeing here. Like the recent elections there was some controversy over the vote: The vote was initiated by User:Etaonish who it's known was displeased that his GameFAQs Forums writeup did not receive the same treatment as the Something Awful Forums writeup, which was allowed to remain as a seperate article to its main article. (This is mainly since the SA Forums are SA's most popular attribute and are famous/infamous for a great deal.) During the vote, some users who were for the deletion made unfounded accusations that a number of those against the deletion were sockpuppets. Then, one user took it upon themself to delete and redirect the writeup before the VfD voting period had ended, and as a result it was promptly restored. (I think the final vote was "Keep, but it could really, really use some cleanup")

Comment: I thought I recognized ExplorerCDT and Etaonish from somewhere!

I think they seem to have some sort of bias...? A"shii"baka ✎ 21:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My only bias is that I think it's a crap article about a rather insignificant web forum (come on, 48,000 members. geesh, that's low for the net) that has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe I can accuse you, Ashibaka, of bias for repeatedly defending such non-encyclopedic garbage. --ExplorerCDT 21:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary, if you take a look at http://big-boards.com/ Something Awful is #7 on the entire Internet. I think in fact Something Awful deserves an article much more than Gaia Online, which despite being at #1 does not have much of its own culture or prominence.
I have to agree that from what I've heard of the SA forums, it's grown into more than just a discussion board about a topic, it's a definite internet community. The people there discuss all topics. They arrange a Secret Santa over Christmas. They set up elaborate schemes like the P-P-P-Powerbook counter-scam. They trade amongst each other at a form of market. They socialize, they form cliques, and on more than a few occasions hold 'goon' meetup events. The low member count is deceptive as to the board's real significance, since the boards require a $10 signup fee which dissuades a great many would-be users and allows through only those who are going to place value in their account and are unlikely to bring a detriment to the SA Forums as a whole --Jonathan Drain 02:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do you frequent Internet forums? That's quite common. I know hundreds, if not thousands of forums that trade, that organize, and hold meetups. As a result,that has nothing to do with whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia.--Etaonish 05:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
We all have bias, of course, but what I meant to say was you particularly seem to dislike Something Awful and therefore shouldn't be given the final ruling over the deletion of SA-related articles. A"shii"baka ✎ 22:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't have final ruling, which might be a saving grace. But, my bias isn't against Something Awful, or whatever Gaia Online is, in fact, I know very little about them to form an opinion positive or negative. Instead, it's more a disliking of the people who have taken this encyclopedia project and turned it into a hobbyist's fan guide, making articles for every Star Wars character who got even the most brief mention in some obscure book, thinking that some website only .000000005% of the modern internet-accessible world has ever seen is a universe-changing event and worthy of a mention, or that every person who has ever been on TV for more than five seconds is "notable" (despite that 45% of Americans alone have been).
So is it notable? Sure they are... but on google.
Somewhere, in either Heaven or Hell, when he peers back at the progress of this, our transitory existence, and reads the latest article on the newest minor character in Pokemon, Diderot cries.
No peasant in the Sudan will care how many fingers some dwarfed puppet that appeared in one episode of Sesame Street had.
If someone does (God forbid) they can build their own website.
Likewise, if some guy really feels the need to talk about "Fuck You and Die" there is a forum for that. Only not here.
But, I guess I can resign myself knowing that the only saving grace for our petty human civilization is that the folks at Encyclopaedia Brittanica are far more discerning. --ExplorerCDT 23:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
SA is a far cry from the insigificance of a .000000005% statistic. Alexa places SomethingAwful.com and its forums at a reach of 135 per million - that's a 0.0135% statistic, which is probably even artificially low considering that it counts only users with the Alexa search bar and hence IE (Firefox is very popular amongst SA goons). It's not exactly Google (15.0000%) or Wikipedia (0.2480%) but for a paid-registration-only site, those numbers aren't entirely insignificant.
Hence I think SA Forums deserves only one writeup of its own, but not a category; if you make an entry for FYAD you might as well make entries for all the other boards, and the forums do not have wide enough reach to warrant any more than one article of their own. --Jonathan Drain 02:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your statistic is incorrect. The Alexa toolbar does not affect Alexa rankings. In addition, SomethingAwful statistics refer to the whole site, including free main pages. Finally, it is important to note that it still is exceptionally low compared to other sites. Certainly not worth this writeup.--Etaonish 05:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
The Alexa toolbar to be the only thing that affects Alexa rankings - "The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach).". [1]
The SA statistics do refer to both the main page and the forums, but over 60% of pageviews counted by Alexa are to the forums, only 35% is to its main page and content. This, of course, is likely to be skewed, but I'm not sure by how much, by the fact that many main-page viewers are using IE on Windows while many forumgoers use alternative browsers (esp. Mozilla Firefox) or operating systems (eg. Linux) - see "Some Important Disclaimers" at Alexa's FAQ.
However, you are entirely correct to say that Wikipedia is the wrong place for an entry entitled Fuck You And Die; a single Something Awful Forums entry will suffice. --Jonathan Drain 13:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. A"shii"baka ✎ 23:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
True. But it is bandwidth, which is more expensive and non-renewable. --ExplorerCDT 00:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I imagine, then that Ashibaka would also like to have extensive pages on himself? After all, it's not paper! Let's also write an article on my keyboard and how it's dirty! Because wikipedia is not paper! And also an article on my left sock! Because wikipedia is not paper! -_- --Etaonish 00:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
You'll kindly refrain from making personal attacks in the future. I was responding to the comment about the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ashiibaka tlk 02:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your comment was clearly intended to imply that since Wikipedia is not paper, we can have much more material on it than a paper encyclopedia. I borrowed an SA technique and used sarcasm to rebut your point.--Etaonish 02:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it was. And your point? Ashiibaka tlk 02:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That the principle of 'Wikipedia is not paper' can't be extended to everything. Just as articles on my sock do not belong at Wikipedia, this level of detail on SA does not belong.--Etaonish 05:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Then you should just say your opinion instead of trying to make a joke that obscures your point. Ashiibaka tlk 05:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made no joke. I sarcastically showed you what your idea would have led to. Apparently you weren't able to pick up on it. I'll try to keep that in mind when I talk to you in the future, and not use complex ideas.--Etaonish 05:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Also, Ashiibaka, according to his OWN user page, "contributed the original text of Something Awful". And you accuse US of bias?--Etaonish 00:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
So? I didn't write that gigantic FYAD blurb we're voting on. Ashiibaka tlk 02:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We're not discussing this. This article is easily going to be deleted. We're discussing the SAF article itself, just in a different location. Both me and Explorer think this should be deleted from the article entirely, you disagree.--Etaonish 02:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
One last thing I noticed: You claim big-boards as a source that SA is important. Big-boards is notoriously unreliable. For example: GameFAQs has had 180 million posts. SA has 21 million. BUT GameFAQs purges its old posts every 24 hours. Hence Big-boards puts it really low.--Etaonish 00:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
You'd think if the posts were noteworthy at all they would keep them around. SA has an "Archives" feature which thousands of people have paid $10 for to read old posts. Ashiibaka tlk 02:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And every archived SA post is noteworthy? Thousands of people isn't very much on the internet. Besides: GameFAQs maintains a completely free environment, something I wish Lowtax would do. "I don't solicit donations because it goes against the entire principle of the Internet - that sites like mine should be free for everybody to view and read." -Lowtax, September 2000 Even though his site receives much more traffic and undoubtedly costs much much more to run, CJayC has never made any part of the site paid-for. Imagine archiving 180 million posts. Much more difficult than archiving 21 million. This shows that the fact that they are purged is irrelevant, and therefore according to post count SA pales in comparison to GameFAQs. --Etaonish 02:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're sayign that if you don't have the bandwidth to provide something for free, it's better to delete it than to make it a paid service. I disagree with this. Ashiibaka tlk 02:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, first I never said it that way, and second you still do not get the point. An encyclopedia isn't the place for articles with no encyclopedic value. This article (and most of the SA junk on here) is a prime example. It's simple...
Premise One: Articles that don't belong, get deleted.
Premise Two: This article doesn't belong, as it isn't encyclopedic.
Conclusion: Poof! That sucker is deleted.
That's the damned point.
If you can't mentally process that simple modus ponens, you can debate it...and I'd recommend you do so on the Something Awful forums.--ExplorerCDT 04:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't be rude. I grasp the concept of deletion, I was simply disagreeing with your idea that the article is unencyclopedic. Ashiibaka tlk 05:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As a neutral third-party (you will see I have had no involvement with any of the SA-related pages, apart from possibly defenfing against the deletion of Jeff K.), I can tell you that an article about a single forum on a single website is certainly not encyclopaedic. IMO, there's already too much detail on the SA forums page - detail which should be on SA, not here. As I've now said thrice, this is not the place to cover for lazy webmastery by providing descriptions that by all rights should be on the site itself. Chris 07:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a point I completely agree with. I'm tempted to edit it down to two or three paragraphs, but some schmuck like Ashi will come by and revert, like they did when Etaonish tried the other day. (Then accused him of vandalism when all he did was take out the bullshit.) --ExplorerCDT 15:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I am. Lowtax archiving the posts isn't because they're important, but because he wants more money. Simple as that.--Etaonish 05:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

To respond to your comment: I put SA Forums up for nomination, and was completely unaware he had put up SA. I don't dislike SA: I dislike the tremendous vanity pages it gets. --Etaonish 00:00, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

From a neutral perspective, as already said, you should know what each forum is about when you actually go there. If it's not obvious from the descriptions, Wikipedia is not the place to cover up for webmasters and/or users that don't know better. We shouldn't have to describe each part of SA forums in detail - that is the job of SA itself. By all means have a simple page on the general themes on the SA forums, and some of the memes that fly around, but we do not need a list of the available forums along with detailed histories of what goes where. Chris 04:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 15:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Bart133 21:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is utterly ridiculous! Indrian 03:59, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge? Or, perhaps, delete. This is pushing it... --L33tminion | (talk) 05:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, Wikipedia is not paper, therefore it is not toilet paper
  • Delete. Don't merge. Nowhere near notable enough to warrant this level of attention. Wikipedia isn't paper but it IS supposed to have some kind of coherence and consistency. How can we expect people to be clear and concise when dealing with very large and complex topics of undoubted significance (ie, Elizabeth I, the History of Paraguay etc) if we also allow such extended discussions of a forum which, whatever else you might think of it, does not have a watergtight claim to notability and is only of very marginal interest. Proportion - see? Mattley 11:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuck_You_and_Die_(Something_Awful_Forum)&oldid=1137863291"