Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farking

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

This is an invented term that is not in the standard usage. A dicdef at best, I believe it neither belongs here nor at Wiktionary. UninvitedCompany 18:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Fark.com community is pretty widespread, although this article doesn't yet do it justice. Alcarillo 19:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and we have Fark.com, I believe, for that. UninvitedCompany
Delete. silsor 20:07, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Depends on size of effect (in comparison to slashdot), whether it deserves own article or whether to just mention within Slashdot effect article. --bodnotbod 21:27, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Farking is exactly equivalent to the Slashdot effect. Hence, no reason for a separate article. Should just be a redirect to Slashdot effect or possibly fark.com. The term should be mentioned in the Slashdot effect article. Isomorphic 19:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. If we read the Slashdot effect article we see it explicitly generalises to include all traffic phenomena of this kind, not just that generated by Slashdot. A section should be added to that article to note similar instances (e.g. farking) and link to their respective sources (e.g. fark). --A1r 15:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fark.com. RickK 21:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
38,000 google hits...Keep. anthony (see warning) 16:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention the term in Slashdot effect. Many of 38,000 google hits are probably use of the term as a corruption of/euphimisim for "fucking", as mentioned in the page for fark. --SamClayton 09:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One sentence about "farking" can be put into fark.com and we can redirect farking there. Andris 04:27, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be used mostly as a euphemism for "fucking" to me. I also see a couple of mentions of it used to describe the process that images used in Fark.com's image contests undergo. Redirect to Fark.com, that seems to be the most likely place somebody typing or linking this would want to go, with the possible exception of the previously mentioned vulgarity. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:59, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
I like the redirection to Fark.com idea Burgundavia 07:23, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe, redirect to fark which is a disambig page instead of Fark.com, since one could also be looking for farking as an euphemism? Andris 15:35, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Fucking. Advertising a website-initiated euphemism is ludicrous (unless it's actually popular, like Google). And being a very heavy web user, I'd never heard of the site. -- Stevietheman 01:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Fark.com has a large readership, of which I and a number of my friends are occasionally members. Did you read the article? How could a small, unknown website create bandwidth problems for anyone? Isomorphic 20:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fark or maybe slashdot effect; I agree, it's redundant to have two articles on the subject of Farking/Slashdotting, whichever you choose to call it. There's nothing unique enough about the word "Farking" that it needs another article: its just a lingo twist used by the Fark community so that the residents of that site don't call it "Slashdotting" when an article was posted and the site they linked became unavailable. Mysidia 00:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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