Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucktard (0th nomination)
Fucktard 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 delete.
A non-notable dicdef at best; a joke entry at worst (see the talk page.) Joyous 02:28, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: ( Fucktard "alt.tasteless" ) gets 40 google hits func(talk) 02:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Did you do a regular google search, or a google groups search? :) -- Chuq 04:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm... this "alt.tasteless" isn't even notable enough to have an entry... this doesn't sound notable to me, so Delete... though I will support a Merge and Redirect if someone can establish notablity of the story and can think of something appropriate to merge it with. func(talk) 02:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've never heard of this usage before. Seems relatively confined to this newsgroup. Delete. - Vague | Rant 02:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- A slightly interesting history if it is true. I'm rather torn on it though; on one hand, we have articles like motherfucker which are similar alterations to a common bit of profanity. On the other hand, this story on its origin seems rather unverifiable and beyond that it seems rather unnotable. If there is nothing it can be merged with, I vote Delete. Reene (リニ) 03:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I saw this article get created yesterday. I sighed, and was about to move it to alt.tasteless and include this joke as a section of that article, thinking if I didn't, it would just clog up VfD even more.. I didn't get round to it, and it has :-/ alt.tasteless is one of those newsgroups where if you have heard of it once, you remember it, but if you haven't heard of it.. well, you're an internet young'un :) Of course, many newsgroups are notable to people who were heavily involved with them, but not to anyone else -- Chuq 04:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: In fact, the term has been used by a Wikipedia editor when corresponding with a vandal before. Just another insult. Geogre 04:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've heard this word before, but I highly doubt it was coined the way this article says it was. In any case, I don't see how this can be more than a dictionary definition. I agree with Func. Delete, though merge and redirect is OK if someone can verify the story and find somewhere good to redirect. But I'm not very hopeful about that. anthony 警告 04:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've heard this word too, but only as a generic insult, never in this version. Delete as unverifiable and un-notable. Fucktard is no motherfucker, let alone fuck. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:28, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd support deleting motherfucker and fuck too, as they are both just big dictionary definitions. anthony 警告 19:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've heard (and used) it too, but I didn't know it was anything but an insult. It could be merged into alt.tasteless if we had such an article; unless and until someone writes that article, delete. —No-One Jones (m) 04:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another unimaginative two-syllable insult using "fuck" as the first syllable. We don't have fuckhead or fuckwad so delete. I'll also support a redirect to alt.tastless as suggested by the others. Antandrus 04:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 19:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep provided it's somehow verifiable. A history of the term would be useful. I am a bit worried that it could be nonsense, though. Nevertheless, I support articles on all kinds of profanity. Profanity is a great expression of culture. Everyking 20:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I can see why it would be useful to keep articles on profanity that was actually somewhat widespread, but I can't see any justification for having information on an inside joke from some obscure Usenet group, not to mention including an entire article dedicated to it. There must be millions if not billions of inside jokes with this level of notability in the world. Definitely delete! [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 23:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, I've heard it before, and I've definitely never been on that group. In fact, I believe I've been called a fucktard on more than one occasion. So to me that indicates it must be fairly widespread, at least on the net. Everyking 00:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Might well be tracable as originating there (I really can't face doing the research), but it's fairly endemic; I've known it on the net for years (and, um, used it), in various wide-ranging contexts. Slang term, fairly uninteresting compound one, but probably more than a single inside joke. Shimgray 00:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I've heard (and used) the term before as well, but it usually seems to just be a contraction of "fucking retard" than whatever creature this is article is trying to explain. I highly doubt the term originated from the newsgroup, rather they probably took the term from elsewhere (or created it independently) as an insult which then developed a mythology behind it as an inside joke. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 13:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or move to Wiktionary -- This article seems more like a dictionary definition. But I've heard it and seen it used more and more frequently, though by people more or less in "urban hipster" and/or geek circles. Not that that makes it any less valid as a word. If we're going by Google hits, then it just got 50,400 when I searched right now, although the first page of results doesn't reflect the usage in the entry under discussion. (The link to the original source seems valid, BTW.) I suppose it comes down to how unique and/or significant the word and the story behind it are, but deleting it wouldn't be my first impulse. --Dablaze 09:58, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Not a good Wictionary article -- Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in the original article. The most common usage of the term is as an insult, one which has more etymology than it has actual meaning. But this article has nothing to do with it. It only deals with the fictional entities described in a single 8 year old alt.tasteless post, one which is sometimes referenced and frequently alluded to (including without using the term "fucktard" in alt.tasteless. The wikipedia article could use a little more work, I guess, but it is not intended to be a simple definition of an insult term. I thought THAT much was clear from what I wrote. I am 100 percent certain that it would be to anyone who actually read the linked usenet post. If this is too obscure or unimportant for wikipedia, fine. But it certainly wouldn't be the most obscure or unimportant thing on here if it stayed. Hell, there are entire categories worse than this. Also, I perhaps used a bad choice of words in my initial edit summary, I was talking about the Usenet post. Oh yeah, and I'm not entirely sure how to do it, but perhaps the name of the page should be changed if it isn't deleted, to something which reflects the alt.tasteless context; and a disambiguation added to point both here and to a wictionary article for the insult term. --Andy_Christ
- Delete: nonnotable slang dicdef. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- reluctant, weak, keep, for this offensive article, but expand it ... I don't like this article but it passes the Bajoran wormhole test. Pedant 01:50, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another example of something of a portmanteau generic insult. I could come up with several dozen right now if I wanted to, but I won't burden anyone with it. -R. fiend 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - or move to wiktionary and add the story of its creation under etymology. -- Key45 22:18, 6 Dec 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.