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.
This information has been culled from the Trolltalk page. Much if it is extraneous, however, with substantial work, it may be worth keeping. Although it's a real element withing the Slashdot subculture, in it's current form it's way over the top. Recommend either delete or major revision. --
ZeLonewolf 17:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Argh. Delete. IIRC, we've been trying to get rid of this for a while. There's something really bothersome about articles written by trolls about trolls.
Isomorphic 17:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Particularly when they contain racist slurs, and also add untruths about having to be African-American to join => Non-encyclopedic. Contributors also claim to be members. => Vanity page. Delete. --
The Anome 21:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree it's over the top, but the lead paragraph seems well-written and even neutral (or it could become so). If anyone who knows Slasdot can verify that they exist/are notable, keep.
Meelar 23:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they exist. And most people who read the comments on Slashdot somewhat frequently have probably noticed them. However, I don't see any reason for keeping this. Brief mention on
Slashdot trolling phenomena is enough.Fredrik00:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Perhaps simply deleting sections 1,2, and 4 would leave the wiki-appropriate content while still leaving enough to justify a separate article?--
ZeLonewolf01:50, 1 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not a vanity page, for I am not a member nor sympathize with the group, but I want a detailed article on them in order to better describe Slashdot subculture.
Crculver19:23, 2 May 2004 (UTC)reply
Keep. I affirm Crculver's sentiments -- to the extent that Wikipedia catalogs
Shock sites and
Slashdot trolling phenomena, it has no reason not to expound in some detail upon them.
New article was informative and neutral. I'd say keep. There's no reason to delete this information, esp. given that we have confirmation that these people exist. This is way too detailed to go into
Slashdot trolling subculture.
Meelar14:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)reply
All: Page was redirected to slashdot trolling phenomena by The Anome. This is not appropriate and breaks process, and thusly reverted. The Anome: please follow the process. Are there any further votes for Delete? It seems since the edit that all votes have been in favor of keeping. --
ZeLonewolf13:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)reply
End discussion
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.