Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOK!

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 keep‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FOK!

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced for over 10 years. An article about a Dutch forum website. Fails WP:NWEB. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Site was, in earlier days of the modern internet, one of the if not the biggest Dutch-language forum, fairly sure I remember it winning the Dutch website-of-the-year in some category or another (probably news or entertainment?) prize at one point, for a while was fairly commonly mentioned and quoted in Dutch news media, had a couple pretty big scandals, and pretty near enough everyone around here in the Netherlands had at least heard of it for one or several of the previous reasons. So it quite probably is notable. That said, it's looking to be pretty hard to prove with actual sigcov in independent sources. Not sure if it's because online searching seems to be getting worse with the year, or because coverage around the time of its peak popularity--late 00s/early 10s, I think--simply no longer is there. Going to look further to see if I can't find some proper sourcing, but not super hopeful based on my initial search. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, did my further searching, and believe I've found enough to justify keeping the article:

Found a source for it winning Dutch website of the year 2010 in News & Information: https://web.archive.org/web/20101129155153/http://www.websitevanhetjaar.nl/tmp_results.php;
SIGCOV in this article in NRC back in 2000, this on netkwesties.nl from 2007 and this in the Volkskrant in 2011.
Possible SIGCOV in Jos Gabriëls, Ineke Huysman, Ton van Kalmthout, Ronald Sluijter (2014) In vriendschap en vertrouwen: Cultuurhistorische essays over confidentialiteit, Uitgeverij Verloren, ISBN 9789087044787, but could only preview some snippets. What little I could see was about the same incident covered here in de Volkskrant (not the same piece as the Volkskrant piece linked above), but possibly somewhat more in-depth/with more relevant background (would need full access to say for sure, though)
Fairly wide coverage in Dutch media of a different incident involving FOK! (when one of the columnists of Fok! wrote a "satirical" column calling for violence against a Dutch politician), but for the most part this is coverage of the incident with only passing mentions of FOK! itself, so not going to list those here since they don't convey much if any notability. An exception is this piece in Parool, which is at least beyond passing mention (but still heavily within the specific context of the incident and not much else)

Suspect there's more somewhere, but it's taking quite some digging because various older newspaper articles don't seem to be indexed by google, searching for fok.nl crowds the results with subpages of the website, and searching for fok! results in a lot of animal welfare articles because that's the Dutch verb for breeding. (sigh) Still, I think the above are just about enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. AddWittyNameHere 16:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough in-depth coverage in sources per above. I see regular mentions by journalistic sources over the past 25 years through a LexisNexis search, such as NRC. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 December 2024 (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.