Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking sign


 * 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.

The result was No consensus to delete the Fucking sign. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fucking sign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is basically just a paraphrase of the content at Fucking, Austria, with the apparent intent to prefix "Fucking" in front of as many things as possible in what I would guess is meant to be a rather feeble attempt at humour. It's not even worth merging it as there is no content in it that is not already in the parent article. There is also no point in having it as a separate article as there is no reason to think that the sign for a place has any notability independent of the place itself (compare Shitterton, which I wrote). So this article fails on two counts: notability and as a redundant content fork. Prioryman (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (Added) For the sake of getting rid of this junk article, I'll record my !vote as de facto delete or merge, even though there's actually nothing to merge as it's merely a poorly executed paraphrase of the original article section without a single word of new content. Let it go back to being a redirect to Fucking, Austria, which it was for the last eight years. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or at the best, salvage whatever there is here that could usefully be merged into the Fucking, Austria article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fucking, Austria, where the signs are mentioned. Since the primary claim of Fucking, Austria is its name and sign a WP:CONSPLIT is no necessary. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing independently notable about the sign.  Anything Wikipedia needs to say about the village's sign can be said in the article about the village.  Deli nk (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Under WP:UNDUE, to include all information about the sign in the village article puts undue weight onto the sign in it. The village is more than just a sign. If anything, the content in the village article about the sign should be merged into the sign article. Not to mention that the sign article includes information about it being the most stolen sign in the world, the statistics for the thefts and info about websites offering guidance on how to commit them. And furthermore, what is the difference between saying "Fucking taxpayers" and "London taxpayers"?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Lots of sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated.  Article is not a copy violation or a lift from the town article.  I agree with User:Patar knight that the primary claim to fame of the town is the sign, which is in turn a play on the town name.  There are many more sources (not yet in the article) that document the notability of the sign itself.  Indeed, the sign removal problem was the primary impetus on a movement to change the town name – which was defeated in the name of tradition.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Earwig is clear, except for the common word. And Compare write does not show the copying someone apparently alleged. See Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, for the second time, it's not about copyvio, it's about duplication of content. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a dog in this fight. Other than being defamed by User:Floquenbeam, who made a wild and wrong assertion of off wiki collusion.  I acknowledge the overlap, and I see arguments against forking, which nobody has even raised.  As I read the DYK rules, if this is merged the DYK won't run.  In any event, Floquenbeam has expressed reservations.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "... I see arguments against forking, which nobody has even raised. ..." are you joking? I've mentioned this about five or six times.  This is an inappropriate split from the main article, something which seems commonplace in order to create new articles which suddenly became valid DYK targets.  As for what Floq said, there is some question over how you conducted a satisfactory QPQ review completely un-notified within 12 minutes of the DYK being posted.  But I'm sure that's just because you were keen.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You did say they had common subject matter. You never used the word "forking."  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 19:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 12 minutes? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Forking? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Forking? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment per " Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated." please, the town and the sign for the town are inherently related. Trying to claim they are somehow completely worthy of independent articles is bizarre per WP:SPLIT.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you've said it.
 * But splitting and overlap is not impermissible. Whether it should be permitted or is worthwhile here is the question involved in this discussion.  Reasonable minds may differ.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You asserted that I'd "never" said "fork" but I proved above that I did, more than once. Please respond to that and correct your incorrect assertion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:7&6=thirteen, I'm still waiting for you to redact your false assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let's be honest about what has happened here. This article was clearly intended to serve as an April Fool's Day article for Did you know, as this was explicitly stated in The C of E's nomination here. The way it was created appears to have been an attempt to game the rules for DYK, which prohibit "text spun off from a pre-existing article". No new content was added; instead, the existing content was simply paraphrased to disguise its origins. The entire purpose of the article seems to have been an effort at rather poor schoolboy humour ("did you know that people have sex in front of, then steal, this fucking sign?", "the Fucking signs", "the Fucking officials", "the Fucking residents", and the edit summary, "create this Fucking sign article". ) Judging from the editing history, there seems to have been some collusion between The C of E and 7&6=thirteen in this effort. Frankly, it's disingenuous of them both to claim that everything was above board in this. There's no good reason for an entirely duplicative article to exist, and making a funny for April Fool's Day is definitely not a good reason. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No collusion. You can question the article and the DYK, and you can say it should not run, but this personal attack and speculation by you is bullshit.  You can take a long walk off a short pier.  There are no facts.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's a coincidence. No need to tell people to "take a long walk off a short pier", although my 90-year-old grandfather says that about people he wishes were dead, so perhaps that's your point.  Either way I'd suggest turning it down a notch or three.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your continued and unwarrranted comments are harassment. None of this was worth this aggravation.
 * What I meant was that your reach has exceeded your factual grasp.
 * Back at you. Either way I'd suggest we both turn it down a notch or three.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No I disagree, your tone has turned sour and hostile and threatening. It's completely unwarranted.  My comments have stayed on point and have asked, continually, for clarification of your (to me) muddled threads, and the fact you used a phrase which is analogous to hoping someone disappears and/or dies is an unfortunate choice on your behalf.  I'm unclear what you mean by "your reach has exceeded your factual grasp", do you mean I've made an error somewhere in my posts?  If so, let's discuss that rather than being so nebulous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You republished the lie that there was some sort of collusion. You are being dense (deliberately or not).  I'm done with you.  WP:Dead horse. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again I'm not following you. I think it's pretty clear that it's better to leave others to decide upon this based on the facts, good luck!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lest there be some confusion, Prioryman added the following to top of the discussion. So this article fails on two counts: notability and as a redundant content fork. This is a newly formed argument.  I don't want subsequent readers to be misled by its belated insertion at the top.  But they should note that those words came later.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The confusion is entirely yours; I didn't add that argument at any point, it was there in my deletion rationale from the start. Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you (7&6) say a lot of things, many of which simply aren't true. I'd be careful with that in the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I received a "complaint" about this, let me be clear, you said above You never used the word "forking." and I refuted that with two diffs where I used the word "forking". I asked you to redact your claim, you didn't.  Apparently,  thinks this is "snarky sniping" whereas I see it as "addressing the false accusations and setting the record straight".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable. The claim of the nomination that there is no content which is not in the more general article is false.  There are clearly sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was originally tagged to merge into the main Fucking, Austria article. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point to any content in this article that is not in the main article? The whole thing is a paraphrased duplicate. Prioryman (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I can; it's just a matter of comparing the two texts and detailing the additions. But what Prioryman needs to look at is WP:REDUNDANTFORK which states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article."  Merger is not deletion and so AfD is not appropriate in such cases.  See also WP:SPLIT.  Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of notes, merge is an acceptable conclusion to an AFD, so no problem there. SPLIT backs up the fact that there should not be two separate articles, thanks for that. The Rambling Man (talk)
 * WP:SPLIT does not support any particular conclusion; the point is that splitting an article is not unusual and is not the occasion for an AfD as deletion is quite inappropriate. When the sign for a place attracts a lot of attention, it may well be sensible to split off the coverage.  See Hollywood sign, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * SPLIT says "splitting an article is not unusual", yes, that's like Basil Fawlty telling me we're talking about the "bleeding obvious". And as you've already been told just above, "merge" is a perfectly acceptable result to an AFD, so this discussion is just fine.  The point here is that splitting from a start-class article into another start-class article information which is much better suited to remain in the main village article is patently silly.  As for the Hollywoodland sign, well, in extremis any argument holds some water I suppose.  That's probably the most famous sign in the whole world, while this is a village sign for a tiny conurbation in Austria which happens to amuse idiots.  Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica would have an entire article dedicated to the sign?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – do we have a page for "World's Biggest Cheeseburger"? "World's Most Stolen Street Sign" is something for the Guinness Book of World Records, not a serious encyclopaedia. This article seems to be a joke anyway, the see also section links to Climax, Michigan. Laurdecl talk 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge – on second thought, I would prefer a merge. There is some good information here, even if the topic fails WP:GNG. Laurdecl talk 10:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * record-breaking cheeseburgers are detailed in Cheeseburger. Stolen street signs are at street sign theft.  Andrew D. (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This article should be detailed at Fucking, Austria, not on its own. Laurdecl talk 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agnostic on whether to delete or keep, but if it is kept, the work of the authors of Fucking, Austria needs to be acknowledged. There was no attribution that I could see. I've added a copied template to the talk page; if there is a more appropriate template that better describes what happened here (the creative content was obviously copied, but the actual text was sufficiently massaged that I wouldn't say the text was copied) then please change it, or let me know which one to use and I'll change it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm all in for attribution, and its a requirement. And if there is any question, obviously credit should be shared.  And you could give them credit for the DYK, too, if it runs.  DYK is not a Zero sum game.
 * If it were a cut and paste, I also think it should not run at DYK. Old wine in new bottles, so to speak.  And indeed, the same article is ineligible for DYK.  But I still don't think this was cut and pasted, and I would think that if The C of E copied he would have noted it in the edit summary and the talk page.  He didn't.  You are fast on the accusations (this time of 'plagiarism', last time 'off wiki conspiracy', and short on proof once again.  Whatever happened to WP:AGF?
 * If there was a cut and paste then it should be admitted and corrected. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect to Fucking, Austria per above. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge I'm not sure if saving the history is preserving the credit or the blame. Anmccaff (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Upon review of the links provided by User:The Rambling Man, it appears that I was wrong. He did earlier mention WP:forking, etc.  I had several discussions going on at the same time, and erred.  I apologize.

I would say that the many sources in this article (it was just an 8 year old redirect before his edits) share the basic concept, e.g., provocative name, stolen sign, and public sex. So the wikipedia article may or may not be the source. When one of our editors put the COPIED template up there (which doesn't fit), this may be helpful in providing credit. We should give EVERYBODY credit, and over inclusion is not per se bad. But there is no evidence. I don't have an objection to the credit, where credit is due. I do have a disagreement about the choice of this template. The use of that template is an attempt at Poisoning the well, and has broader purposes than mere attribution. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per all the keeps above. The subject of this article is more notable than the subject of Fucking, Austria, so if one of the articles has to go, maybe it's that one.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   22:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no advantage to having this separate from Fucking, Austria and there doesn't appear to be much in the subarticle worth merging back into the parent article that isn't already there.  Peacock (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a duplication of Fucking, Austria and per comments above. --NSH001 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary content fork, as said above. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing independently notable about the sign. Merge it back.  Rcsprinter123    (reason)  16:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge any unduplicated content back to the town's article. This can then be returned to redirect status as it is a plausible search term. Otherwise, this article is a completely un-needed fork. WP:UNDUE mainly applies to viewpoints about a topic, not really aspects of the subject. The one line in there that might apply here states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. This actually strengthens the policy basis to delete it, as the coverage of the sign vis-a-vis the town in the main article is heavily tilted towards the sign in reliable published material. So having the main article focus heavily on the sign matches the focus of sources. Crow  Caw  18:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fucking Merge' it. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge any non-duplicative content into the parent article on the town, then return to being a Redirect. The page need not be deleted as a plausible redirect.  The sign could have a stand-alone article if there were sufficient content for it to be overwhelming the parent article and needing to be forked, but I don't see that point has having been reached.  The debate / discussion about DYK does not belong here as it does not pertain to the deletion criteria, and is moot as far as April Fools Day goes in any case.  EdChem (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no reason for deletion. It is a bit controversial I guess but that is not a reason for deletion. The article is well written, good sources. I see plenty of IDONTLIKE it rationales above. This article should not be deleted or merged.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The rationale I see is that it's a non-notable content fork, not "IDONTLIKE". An article being "well written" does not make the subject notable. Laurdecl talk 08:20, 11 April 2017 (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.