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.Fredrik 00:37, 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?--ZeLonewolf 01:50, 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. Crculver 19:23, 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.
In any case this page needs improvement. It reads like a GNAA troll post itself. Keep and improve. Rdsmith4 02:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
YES. Help us improve instead of blatantly censoring us. You get a golden goatse award. Goat-see 21:36, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I just cited it in a paper I'm writing for my english class... seriously (it's about internet trolling). Keep. →Raul654 00:14, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
Just cleaned this article up a bunch. Please review for wiki-propriateness in current form. --164.223.72.7 14:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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. Meelar 14:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better now. Others have also provided some good arguments for keeping it, so keep. Fredrik 15:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's JUST as valid as Trolltalk, Shock site, and Goatse.cx. I'm not just saying this because i'm in the organization, i'm saying this because 82.39.115.87 keeps trying to knock us down. Goat-see 21:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misread his statement. →Raul654 22:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not just saying this because i'm in the organizationGoat-see 22:54, 4 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. --ZeLonewolf 13:38, 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.