Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4chan 0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

4chan 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 Keep

This entry is simply an advertisement for a homepage containing child pornography hentai and other porn. (listed by

This description is inaccurate. There is no "child pornography hentai" on 4chan.
  • Keep. It's notable. If you want to make the case that it should be rewritten, then do so, but it's definitely notable enough to be kept. Also, note that your implicit delete vote would not normally be counted, because you don't have an account. --Improv 16:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs cleanup. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; agree that cleanup is needed. —tregoweth 19:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The anon's description of 4chan is flatly wrong on at least two counts: 4chan is not anyone's "homepage", but a public image bulletin board; and saying that 4chan "contain[s] child pornography" ignores the fact that such material is flatly against 4chan's rules and is removed whenever it is posted. Saying that 4chan "contains" child pornography hentai because people can post it there and it may stay up for fifteen minutes or half-an-hour before being deleted (and the poster's IP banned) is like describing Wikipedia as "a homepage that contains copyright violations". -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The GNAA has a history of attacking/crapflooding this site, and the VfD was put up by an anon. Not to jump to any conclusions or anything, but some skepticism might be in order here. 02:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Speaking of which, how long until the GNAA article can be relisted on VfD, anyway? :) —tregoweth 06:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • The GNAA article is a necessary evil, so I take it you're referring to deleting the actual GNAA, which would be a Good Thing Chris 00:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, possibly most notable of the English-language image tagboards. Frankly, I think all of the image tagboard articles should be merged into imageboard, but that's not the issue here. Gwalla | Talk 04:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained above. siroχo 15:34, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no child pornography on 4chan. MrVacBob 18:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm going to merge all the *chan articles into 1 big article at some point in the future, but they are too important to delete. Ashibaka 18:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the stipulation that user Ashibaka handles said cleanup - I'm not entirely sure 4chan warrants its own Wikipedia entry but I'd like to see what might be done with a writeup. I'd also like to second (or third, or forth) the notion that the website is not a child pornography resource, which is the VfD requester's reason for requesting the deletion - the website did in the past have a /l 'lolikon' section, but this has since been removed, and even with this, 4chan strictly enforced rules of "no pictures of real people whatsoever in /l" and "no lolikon outside of /l", keeping such content both legal as defined by the Supreme Court and restricted to only a single board. Since control of the site was largely turned over from moot, its original creator, 4chan has also been making moves to become more like 2chan's community, with more non-pornographic image boards and more discussion boards using Shiichan, the 2chan-like anonymous BBS software.--Jonathan Drain 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is extremely notable - by no means should it be deleted. Andre (talk) 23:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep VfD is nothing more then an attempt at trolling. --Paul Soth 06:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep ... Philip Nilsson 21:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now merged into Imageboard to better reflect 4chan's popularity. Hopefully this resolves all complaints! Ashibaka 23:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and un-merge. I do not agree with the merging of this article and believe it qualified as its own. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:24, 12 Nov 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.