Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the South 2


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuck the South
Previous AfD. Disputed AfU close by Jtkiefer. Borderline opinion count. Undeleted by Jtkiefer prior to normal AfU close due to apparent consensus for undeletion. I am now relisting it on AfU per usual procedure. I am not voting myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Reason for listing on AfD was "Non-notable website promotion" Ryan Norton T 21:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete still unconvinced of notability. Ryan Norton T 21:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This isn't VfU.  I'm unclear as to the status of the article at present .  Jkelly 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Consensus on VfU was evidently to relist on AfD. So that's what's happening, evidently. Ryan Norton T 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jtkiefer performed the disputed close. It was listed on VfU, and garnered mostly "undelete" votes. Jtkiefer judged that there was consensus at VfU to undelete, so he undeleted the article himself. He failed to relist it on AfD which is the procedure whenever an article is undeleted per VfU. (In VfU, a vote to undelete does not imply that the voter thinks the article should be kept. People who voted in the VfU will presumably express their opinions here.) Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clue-in. Jkelly 22:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many websites in the world, and I don't see why this one is significant. Friday (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn website, as I voted the first time. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: An utterly inconsequential, non-notable, one-page hate/shock/attack site that scores an abysmal Alexa rating of 231,655. It's astounding to me that anyone would think this Web site warrants even a mention, let alone its own article &mdash; it's not even remotely significant enough to include here (except on the speedy delete page). &mdash; C Maylett 22:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Current Alexa rating is almost irrelevant; this article is a record of the historical significance of the article, not it's current significance.  Un  focused  22:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw *  22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable website and among the best flame baits out there. / Peter Isotalo 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; this website is illustrative of the depth of the divide between red & blue states after the 2004 election, and was immensely popular then. Wikipedia should have a well written, NPOV article on this, even if the title shocks those of delicate sensibilities.  Wikipedia is not censored.   Un  focused  22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't about censoring an article because it deals with a profane Web site, it's about deleting an article due to the subject matter's lack of merit. The Web site (including its history) is just a non-notable stink bomb that is "illustrative" of very little other than how the Internet can be used for insignificant, run-of-the-mill, hate-filled tirades. By the way, its Alexa ranking (which, in my opinion, does count) has pretty well been bottom-of-the-bucket insignificant except for a week-long spike to so-so status after the elections (by no means "immensely popular"). In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the Alexa page comparing traffic to the site in question to Wikipedia.org over the past year. Wikipedia is the orange line. Fuckthesouth.com is the barely visible blip at the bottom of the chart during last November. &mdash; C Maylett 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Specious argument. Compare ANY typical private website to Wikipedia over the past year and it'll be a tiny blip.  Even many of the most notable and popular would be as well.  Look here and you'll see that this was in the top 5,000 web sites shortly after the election.  That IS notable and significant.  Un  focused  03:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to call being in the top 5,000-traffic Web sites during one two-week period "notable and significant," well, I guess you're easily impressed. To me it's convincing evidence (as if any is needed) of the site's lack of notability. Using your reasoning, Wikipedia ought to have articles about all the other tens of thousand of Web sites that have at one time or another crossed the so-so 5,000 benchmark. Like I said, non-notable. &mdash; C Maylett 06:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, now you want to discard Alexa since it's proven counter to the point you were trying to make when you brought it up. Fuck the South is notable not only because it was a top 5000 web site, but for the other reasons I've already posted here AND that it was a top 5000 site.  Regarding your straw man about articles for other top 5000 sites; I never claimed that being top 5000 is the only claim to notability, in fact, the opposite is true.    Un  focused  06:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't speak for anyone else, but my delete suggestion is based not on shock, but on expecting website articles to make it clear why the subject is significant.  Personally, I have no problems with "undelicate" articles like Fuck. But websites are like bands; everybody has one.  Some of them are significant, but I see no reason why this one is.  Friday (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete one-page rant. We're voting on the "historical significance" of this?  This ain't the document Martin Luther nailed to the Wittenburg door, nor is it the Communist Manifesto.  It's a glorified blog post that just happens to have been given its own domain name. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If it used the word "shit" ninety-one times more, it could be the Ninety-Five Feces. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I voted in the previous afd after I posted a rather off-topic rebuttal to the subject web site (apologies again), but that included the question "is notoriety the same thing as notability?" which I consider to still be apropos and on topic. After I cooled off and reviewed the article and rebuttal sites on the web, I became the sole Merge, suggesting Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide and  Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article as alternatives to provide some information regarding divisive elements in the US which I think is notable in appropriate article(s). I expressed that I preferred that to keeping it as separate article. I should have included that this was not a keep but Delete if not merged. WCFrancis 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that AfD remains pretty much binary for the closer: a normal editor cannot merge what isn't kept, and you cannot compel the closer to read your mind to merge to your liking. I would suggest being bold and merging the content yourself next time, and if reverted, back down.  If unreverted, you've improved Wikipedia, which is the goal of everyone here.   Un  focused  04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If I find an article that makes sense to merge instead of nominating for AfD, I'll do it in a heartbeat; if it already on AfD, I generally leave it alone until after close of the discussion. I just looked at Guide to deletion and found the indication that it was ok to do so, but the request not to blank and not to redirect are in there as well. Now I'm confused. WCFrancis 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Taking a vulgar phrase out of the mainstream and expanding it into a political rant in the form of a website does not create an encyclopedia worthy topic. If this article should survive this AfD, then it should be sent to cleanup to remove all the unverifiable sections. --Allen3 talk 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not only non notable, but also potentially offensive to many users. Shauri 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable and not encyclopedic. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  00:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to U.S. government environmental policy Delete. Grutness...  wha?  01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable website. I'm amazed at all the fuss over this. android  79  02:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - real, somewhat notable - got a lot of attention from both left and right after 2004 elections. Guettarda 02:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic trivia.  Wikipedia is not a web-directory.  The argument that this one-page rant has some special historical or political significance is unconvincing.  Rossami (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Rossami. Zach (Sound Off) 04:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * EXTREME DELETE, burn the author of the page. Regionalistic hatred that we shouldn't be giving attention to. I live in a blue state and I'm apolitical, but the writer of this page is a true dick. Why keep it? Because it has wikilinks? (Oh and for a side note, I favor keeping the GNAA, but this page really needs to die.) Let's make an article for Joe Blow's webblog citing why he hates Massachusetts. Yayyyz! -- R e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redwolf24, is there anything you want to say to me directly? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's humor, not hatred. Extreme, frustration-based humor that reflects the depth of the political divide at that point in time.  Keep in mind that politics wasn't always this divisive, and won't always be this divisive.  It rises and falls over the course of decades.  This is a valid, interesting, and unmistakable marker of this cycle's peak (I hope that was the peak!)   Un  focused  05:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep . The webpage described is offensive, as noted by Redwolf but it also got a lot of attention at the time and perhaps has minor historical interest.  However, I would support deleting it if someone did an article about the larger phenomenon of reaction websites created by various non-Republicans after the election, including information about this site, sorryeverybody.com, and so forth. Crypticfirefly 04:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)  Merge (but keep if not merged)  User:Unfocused, User:Kjkolb, User:WCFrancis, I encourage you to write the article that this can be merged into. Crypticfirefly 05:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, acrimony between regions can be described in other articles. There's no need to keep an article on this non-notable site. -- Kjkolb 06:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a single web page isn't worth of an article.  Grue  06:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: encyclopedic, notable, verifiable, interesting, good article &#10149;the Epopt 10:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Political rant of little historical importance. Mention this somewhere, but it doesn't even merit a full merge. (Feel free to interpret this vote as merge if it helps build consensus, though.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It must not rise again.Geni 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Martg76 14:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable chowells 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete kill it with fire. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just one of countless thousands of hate-filled rants posted on the internet after the recent election. Why pay any attention to this particular site?
 * Delete, nonnotable hate-group website. --Angr/undefined 07:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this please because it is notable and interesting even tho it is not promoting a good attitude that does not change anything Yuckfoo 05:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleteas Insult page. Anyway, this encyclopedia is supposed to be relevant for those outside the U.S., isn't it? It's not notable. Acropolis now 23:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an nn webpage. Down the drain you go. --Blackcap | talk 23:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete again. `Gazpacho
 * Delete one-off, non-notable webpage CDC   (talk)  00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Unfocused. (NB:Unfocused's rationale is the sole ground for my vote -- what follows is a public explanation of why I have userfied this content, and why I take offense at the notion that this is simply called a "hate site" by some.) And, as a native Southerner, personally endorse the site. Xoloz 04:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is notice that I have kept the content of this page in my user space; anticipating deletion, I pledge it will never be recreated as an article by me. This website was one of several things that prevented my suicide last year, so perservation of the entry is a personal matter for me. Xoloz 05:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And lastly, I find some humor in the number of "kill/burn the hate site" remarks. We who hate the South hate it for its hatred of others (like say, historically, blacks, gays, Catholics, liberals, the disabled, pacifists, intellectuals, internationalists, anti-capitalists, and "Yankees", some of which hatred indisputably persists.)  Objectively, of course, this is just pot-calling-kettle and kettle-calling-pot.  But, for devout Bluesies, comme moi, saying fuck the South is like saying fuck Nazi Germany.  I can't say, objectively, that the South is evil; but, I can say, having lived there (in Virginia, Mississippi, and North Carolina) and having suffered scorn and violence for the first 18 years of my life, the values which make the South distinctive are values I hate as passionately as I hate Nazism.  So it is for many people.  And, yes, this is a soapbox, but I take offense at the suggestion that this is a "mere" hate site -- the question is intensely complicated for those of us who have lynched grandfathers. Xoloz 05:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have wrote a lengthy reply here: User talk:Xoloz. I didn't feel that, due to the length of the reply, it was appropriate to post here, and so have just provided a link to it. --Blackcap | talk 07:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your page, but will post portions relevant to the vote here. "As I indicated, my vote was based on the reasons given by Unfocused (and I'll add here, was solely so). My initial endorsement was given to admit upfront any biases.

My personal history was given to explain why I userfied the content (in a later comment). My self-admitted soapbox comment (also separate) was given, as I said, to address the "hate site" issue raised by others, which I found specious and offensive. I do not "soapbox" often, but I will do so when I feel justified grounds for personal offense. Others should be careful what they call a hate site." Xoloz 08:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The site is somewhat well-known, and is relevant to some political discussions. - Unsigned post by 68.70.117.2. This is 68.70.117.2's third edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap
 * Delete Not notable. –Uris 19:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I just looked at it and fail to see what the point is. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Uk éflag large.png|25px| ]] 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. mikka (t) 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Fuck Delete the article - Hahnchen 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly has been noted. What else does "notable" actually mean to you guys? Deplore attempt to restrict what Wikipedia is allowed to cover too -- it's not an endorsement. Grace Note 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't go around mocking other people's votes, for Jesus' sake. Some people think this is notable enough, others don't. A vote of delete on an article such as this is not necessarily censorship, it could be just a belief that this is non-notable. Further, in my not-so-humble-as-it-could-be opinion (and apparently the opinion of a good dictionary, see here), 'notable' means 'worthy of being noted,' not 'noted,' as shown by the clichéd example, "I have noted the elm tree in my yard, and thus it is worthy of an encyclopedia article." --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable enough for its own page, but i would be ok with this being mentioned in some sort of red vs. blue after the 2004 election article. Youngamerican 18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Why not?  It's fun and, as previously mentioned, shows the depth of the divide.  If it offends anyone, they can choose not to read it.  Grandma Lucy. (preceding unsigned comment by  19:01, October 1, 2005)
 * Note: this is 69.85.163.10's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap
 * Delete. The article iteself establishes the non-notability of its subject.  Even if some of those voting "keep" are right about its significance, I'd go along with Youngamerican. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:47, 2 October 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.