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)[reply]

Fucking sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is basically just a paraphrase of the content at Fucking, Austria#Name, 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#Disappearing sign, 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)[reply]

• (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#Name, which it was for the last eight years. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Merge to Fucking, Austria#Name, 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  It was originally tagged to merge into the main Fucking, Austria article. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• record-breaking cheeseburgers are detailed in Cheeseburger#History. Stolen street signs are at street sign theft. Andrew D. (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. This article should be detailed at Fucking, Austria#Name, not on its own. Laurdecl ^talk 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / redirect to Fucking, Austria#Name per above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete. Just a duplication of Fucking, Austria#Name and per comments above. --NSH001 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary content fork, as said above. Bencherlite^Talk 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing independently notable about the sign. Merge it back. Rcsprinter¹²³ (reason) 16:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 statesAn 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)[reply]
• Fucking Merge' it. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.