Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture

Slashdot subculture 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

We don't need extensive articles about the subculture of a website. Think about it. I could make a lame joke and get an encylopedia article too. Norm 09:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Simply not notable. Are we ever going to get rid of the stigma of "The Encyclopedia That Slashdot Built"? Ambi 09:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Deletion isn't the way to do that… — David Remahl 13:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • As stigmata go, I'd say that's not much more than a "beauty mark." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • By writing more good content, not by deleting good content that we have. Mark Richards 17:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good article. Unfortunate that so much effort went into it rather than something else, but there it is. zoney ♣ talk 09:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with it, and no reason why we shouldn't have an article on it, either. Granted, it's a relatively obscure topic, but don't we take pride in having articles even on topics that wouldn't appear in old-fashioned encyclopedias like Britannic? -- Schnee 10:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You are utterly out of your mind. Um, has had quite a lot of influence on internet culture. Kim Bruning 10:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - pir 10:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Obscure topic, but somewhat notable and interesting. Has had some influence on a good part of the internet. Thue | talk 10:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let the reader decide what he needs and looks for. The right to choose:-) --GillianAnderson 11:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written, informative, sufficiently important.
  • Keep. Slashdot is a wonderful example how on the internet a group culture can develop. Sander123 11:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • An obscure topic, which has an over-inflated 'importance' here because it's a web clique. I'm going to vote delete, but I expect it'll be kept, and if so I just hope that any useful stuff from the Slashdot trolling pages is moved here and they're got rid of. Average Earthman 13:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all of these into the main slashdot article. Delete, there is nothing notable here. Oh, they make fun of certain users? Their humor is often sarcastic? They tell bad jokes? Whoop-de-doo, this could be called "Internet board subculture" because the same damned thing holds for every other bulliten board out there with only slightly varying specifics. --Fastfission 13:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, the encyclopaedia should have an article on this. Many fads have originated and/or gained popularity on slashdot and spread to other places on the Internet. However, I fear that a lot of the information in the article is original research. I know that academic papers have been written on the subject, so it is very much salvageable. If it is deleted now, someone could speedy delete it the next time someone with actual factual information creates it. — David Remahl 13:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Deletion of an article on VfD does not prevent another article on the same subject or even with the same name being written. If this were deleted, only what is essentially the same article could be speedy deleted if it reappeared. But I'm not voting either way at the moment. Jallan 14:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • One would think so, and I certainly do. Not everyone agrees. And I can understand that line of reasoning too, if an article is deleted based on the subject's lack of notability, why should a new article on the same subject not be deleted (unless something happened to make the subject notable)? — David Remahl 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Quite true, if notability is the only reason for deletion. But matters are often not so clear cut. Often there are mixed motives, e.g. not especially notable and somewhat POV. Another writer on the same topic may make notability clearer and be more NPOV. I recall an obvious advertisement being placed here with a comment that the text was not quite so bald as a previous version with the same name and that it was different text and so it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. Jallan 17:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Archaeologists dig through more middens than pyramids. You never know what's going to be important years down the track. V 15:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: By that logic Wikipedia should keep everything. That's not possible, or Wikipedia would be overrun with advertising and vanity and POV, all quite likely useful to a future scholar but not what Wikipedia is for now. Nothing should be kept for that reason. Jallan 17:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Well, talk about reductio absurdum. Are you arguing that the article Slashdot subculture is advertising, vanity, or POV? V 15:30, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: No, I'm arguing that your reason was not a valid one, that it would just as well apply to an article that was advertising, vanity, or POV. Jallan 16:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Comment: Heh, seems like this boils down to a mis-understanding then since I was only applying this argument as a counter against it being deleted for not being notable or the topic being *cough* trash. Anyway, as far as future scholarly works on garbage in wikipedia goes, that's what the edit history is for. Cheers. V 16:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good article, and a genuinely notable Internet community. I was certainly aware of the existence of Slashdot and its subculture for at least a couple of years before I created an account and started reading it regularly. Uneven topic coverage is part and parcel of Wikipedia, no point in fussing over it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it is not _all_ interesting, it is a valid article. /. has a role here and on the net Cavebear42 16:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and make political and vexatious use of vfd a bannable offense. Mark Richards 17:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow, thats a lot of work, and pretty good (altho the topic may be transitory in the long run). Geecee 17:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. ElBenevolente 17:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very obscure, and I can't stand slashdot, but there's nothing wrong with the article. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 18:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 18:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not perfect, but a generally informative and descriptive article (some people will even look for this, IMO) about a tedious subculture. Fire Star 20:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tregoweth 21:34, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ancheta Wis 01:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it commited the 'sin' of being Original Research, it should be headed towards Wikisouce, NOT deleted. Also, improving is far better than plainly deleting. Pentalis 1:32:09 UTC 29 Sep 2004
  • Keep. -R. S. Shaw 05:14, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slashdot is actually a pretty big cultural phonomenon, and so its subculture is *probably* notable enough to document. --Improv 12:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Found it interesting [Anonimous Coward :)]
  • Keep. This article doesn't contain blatant factual errors, why delete facts? Wiki should be the encyclopedia of everyting, not of everything except the Slashdot subculture. The article was certainly notable enough for the rest of us to find and comment on.
  • Keep. But this should be pared down—it's really too long to be useful. (And why isn't it Slashdot culture?) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My two cents: Merge with a new article on Internet forum subcultures. Many of the memes documented in this article may have originated on slashdot, but none of them are unique to it (except maybe the crappy tech jokes). Move slashdot specific content to Slashdot, move the rest to a new page, giving credit to Slashdot where credit is due. -Randwicked 11:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Recycling Troll 21:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's well written, cotains good information, albeit for a small group, this is a good place to merge other Slashdot articles that do not deserve an article. -- Solitude 13:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Brutulf 10:46, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't need articles on subcultures of the Slashdot subculture, like Slashdot trolling phenomenon and Gay Nigger Association of America, but Slashdot is definitely sufficiently important that it deserves its own article. If that article happens to be more thorough than other articles, so much the better. Users who complain about the "encyclopaedia that slashdot built" are invited to submit articles on non-Slashdot topics. Saforrest 18:22, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What on earth is your motivation to destroy and limit the content of this encyclopedia? Are your preferences and your views on what Wikipedia should be so strong, you use VFD as a tool to further your aims? How about letting all the flowers bloom? --Tmh 21:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing wrong with it! Has interesting and insightful information.

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.