Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (3rd nomination)

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot subculture

Like Recurring jokes on Slashdot (listed here) but worse. A total pile of memes floating around slashdot, based entirely on original research, without a single secondary source to back up the existence of any of them as memes. Fails WP:NOR and WP:V really really blatantly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see related afd:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena_(2nd_nomination) Bwithh 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete much worse even than Recurring jokes on Slashdot. Ends with a long list of links to posts which may be one of the worst cases of external linking in Wikipedia history. Possibly a sentence or two might be worthy of a merge into Slashdot, but I feel sorry for whoever takes it upon themselves to wade through this cesspool looking for slivers of salvagable content. This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles out there. Period. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per Starblind. Very bad wikipedia article. Unencyclopedic, crufty, full of OR, and no real definition of what Slashdot "subculture" actually is, beyond "like internet forums in general, but more so". By the way, Slashdot_trolling_phenomena is also very bad and covers some of the same ground Bwithh 18:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not suitable for an encyclopedia. QuiteUnusual 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently OR. Better suited for Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. than for us. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete giant useless crufty memepile. Also, s/Slashdot/Fark/g and 90% of the content is still true. Opabinia regalis 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: one article listing Slashdot "memes" may be useful to keep the main text clean, like the "... in popular culture" articles do. In any case this article contains duplications (e.g. with In Soviet Russia) and too many details. The other two articles are unsalvageable. Pavel Vozenilek 22:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we already went through this once. Just beccause an article needs work does not mean it should be deleted. This is an interesting subject that many people will search for. FMI see [1] and [2], and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshach (talk • contribs)
- The first was over two years ago, the second was no consensus. There are a lot of early pages that wouldn't pass current muster. Consensus can change. P.S., both of your links are nothing but wikipedia mirrors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and I'm not convinced the topic is encyclopedic. Dekimasu 10:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a secondary source, there is only one way to verify this; go to Slashdot. Which, in turn, would be OR. If someone has a secondary source about this info, it should stay, but I find it unlikely that someone out there has documented the themes of slashdot forum posts. Mitaphane _talk 10:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:IAR. Needs some rewritting but looks like a good article to have on Wikipedia. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that the article has been around since February 2004 and is still awful. I'd say if cleanup were possible, it would have happened long ago. That's not to say you can't give it a try though. I'm curious, where do you plan on finding your reliable sources to reference the material in the article? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Bwithh and Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 11:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are quite a few Slashdot articles that need deleted, but this is not one of them. --- RockMFR 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not verifiable at all. Recury 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I think that Internet culture is a worthwhile topic, but, if there are no reliable, third-party sources, delete. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dreadful, pointless article, for which I cannot imagine a single random visitor searching. Vizjim 06:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fundamental flaws WP:V, WP:NOR have not been addressed since the last AfD, More time isn't going to improve this article.--Isotope23 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for being too original researchy. RFerreira 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much OR. Yep, would be a good research topic, but Wikipedia is not for OR. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:30, 11 October 2006 (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.