Talk:4chan.eu

Site was up for 3 months from ~oct 2006 to around january 2007, the furry boards in question were a minimal part of the site and had zero to none posts. It should be deleted because it is like adding any random site that happends to have a category for furry related things.


 * You mean like people do anyway? We don't use Wikipedia's standards for notability. Is it causing problems with someone finding work? Has it become a rallying cry for 4chan furries? If you are just so damned embarrassed that we acknowledge 4chan.eu, then why don't you come out and SAY SO? Why exactly are you (whoever you are) continuously lobbying for this article's removal? -- Siege(talk) 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the owner of the site, i don't see how it should've had an article in the first place, it's not about notability, more like relevance to the subject of this site. It's not relevant and thus it should be deleted.


 * Unlike the main 4chan site, 4chan.eu specifically included furry boards. That's relevant enough, I would think, regardless of how little traffic occurred (I suspect it would have grown if the site had remained active for more than a few months). However, I would not object to the article being merged with 4chan. -- Siege(talk) 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The site isn't related to 4chan other than the url. Also stop removing my tags. The article should be deleted because it's not relevant, how is having empty boards on a dead site anywhere near relevant?


 * Why remember the Alamo? They lost! Who cares what Napster used to be? It's RIAA now! Who gives a shit about Wendy O. Williams? She killed herself! Is Betamax worth remembering? It was kicked to the curb! The Adam's Mark is entirely gone after just a few years, why remember it? ConFurence East only held three gatherings, no point keeping that page around!


 * More seriously, I think that your reasoning doesn't really hold water. How is it not relevant that the site had furry boards, regardless of how little they were used? It doesn't matter that the site is dead; we're not resurrecting it, just remembering it. It seems to me that you want even the memories of 4chan.eu to die, as if it was some sort of scar on your soul. -- Siege(talk) 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Those were notable things, should i add articles about stuff i remember from childhood? I had a pet, should i write an article about it? And no there is no scar, there is nothing to remember.

Nothing suggests that the article is inappropriate to stand as an article of its own. The furry board inclusion, its disparity with its American counterpart, and the final assimilation by same makes it worthwhile to keep it as is, unless a logical and valid argument can be made to the contrary Spirou 07:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So just because the url is similliar it means it should be here? They have nothing to do with eachothers, the boards were empty, it was only up for ~3 months. How is that not enough? Well that makes me a bit warm in my heart since having empty boards is enough for inclusion here. I'm glad that furry fandom is as small as you make it seem.
 * Even if it didn't have a similar URL, the fact that it had a furry board(s), unlike the more famous mainstream image boards (whether 4chan, 420chan, 7chan, etc.), makes it notable (on WikiFur or smaller wikis, not Wikipedia). The fact that the URL was spelled similarly to that of 4chan.org (and now directs to 4chan.org, which has a no-furry policy) is only of passing, referential importance. Also, since WikiFur tends to cover even smaller-timed image boards (furry-exclusive or general) than yours that came and went with the proprietors' interest, I don't think that the comparison between a website and your own childhood or pet was necessary. So what's wrong with a wiki article about a website? --RayneVanDunem 02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shock Site redirect
I've checked the edit that was reverted and I've found it to be verified (and annoying). The link we have to 4chan.eu redirects not to 4chan.org but to a shock site called "GNAA Last Measure Live" located at furfags(dot)on(dot)nimp(dot)org.

This page resizes the viewer's browser and makes it bounce wildly around the screen. It also occasionally spawns popup windows which reloads the page and the irritating script that makes the window fly around out of control.

Even if the viewer closes the popups AND the offending page, the browser will continue to move around randomly and in uncontrollable ways. Popups to the shock site will likewise still continue to appear. The only way to cease such behavior is to close the entire browser itself, or kill it's proccess.

As such I am adding a temporary nowiki tag to the link on the article and a notice concerning the redirect. --Markus(talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Spirou, I've made a little extra discovery but I'm not sure if my wording will work with the section we have in the article on the fake site redirect. Could you tell me if this following paragraph will suffice? I ran the initial check that found the shock site using Firefox. This time I used IE.


 * Tests on the fake site using IE (rather than FF for the initial discovery) shows that the site will attempt to install a trojan into the user's system. This trojan goes by the name "JS_IESTART.E" by most english anti-virus programs and is called "HTML/Malicious.ActiveX.Gen" in the German Avira Antivir program (which is what detected the attempt in this second test). The trojan may be responsible for the unwanted behavior, as it may has been modified specifically to force the user to view the fake page's shock pictures via the popup windows it spawns. The original virus modifies the browser's homepage (if it's IE) and alters registry settings, spawns popup windows full of advertisements, and drops links to the new homepage on the desktop, quick launch, start menu, and all programs menu.


 * If the above needs editing, please feel free to suggests what to cut and what to expand. --Markus(talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Status update (July 23rd 2008)
Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep?, Delete?. Vote on Keep Spirou 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Undecided There's no notability requirement, but if it wasn't furry related(if there were no posts in the furry-labeled sections as first post claims) then Delete --Rat 08:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Article update #2 (April 17 2009)
Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. Keeping my vote on Keep - Spirou 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article update #3 (November 1 2009)
Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. Spirou: Keep, Rat: Delete - Spirou 22:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article final decision (March 6 2009)
Three's requests on the appropriateness status, Tie. Keep or delete?. Spirou: Keep, Rat: 'Delete - Spirou 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tending towards delete, because the site was not inherently furry and (as far as I can see) failed to gain any relevance within the furry community. Google search shows no other references relating to furry in connection with the site. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)