Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot

Recurring jokes on Slashdot

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pure original research (identifying things as recurring jokes) without any secondary sources (sites other than slashdot). Fundamentally inappropriate for wikipedia. Precedent would be something like List of YTMND fads, which was redirected back to the the main article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see related afds:

Delete Unencylopedic content and listcruft Bwithh 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. Interesting article, but it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. —Whomp ^(myedits) 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To tell the truth, this article isn't quite as bad as I expected it to be, but it's still bad. Many of these aren't exclusive to Slashdot, and quite a few are obscure enough that even longtime Slashdot readers wouldn't recognise them. The most visible running gag of all (using CowboyNeal in the poll answers) isn't covered. Cleanup would be pointless, as collecting other websites' jokes and trivia just isn't a job for an encyclopedia. If anyone feels this is worth documenting, they should do it on Slashdot itself or on their own website. Wikipedia isn't the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I highly doubt that reliable sources exist for this topic. — TKD::Talk 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Slashdot subculture - most of the content is already there anyways. --- RockMFR 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Slashdot subculture doesn't cite any third-party reliable sources either, and doesn't look to be much better, IMO. — TKD::Talk 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - One at a time, one at a time :) --- RockMFR 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the merge proposal. Ultimately, they should probably both be deleted, but at the moment Recurring jokes on Slashdot is a much less awful article than Slashdot subculture is. Merging the better one into the worse one is like tossing a moldy cheesecake onto a festering pile of manure: yes, it might technically make it smell better, but nobody's gonna want to get close enough to take a whiff either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that the recurring jokes list is already in the subculture article (almost a direct copy and paste). Merge anything that is not already there, kill the jokes article, and then possibly kill the subculture article. --- RockMFR 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Omg, Slashdot subculture is so incredibly bad... ~~it should be blanked and rebuilt from the ground up under semi-protect.~~ Or better, just delete that too - not convinced there is encyclopedically notable slashdot subculture worthy of own article Bwithh 17:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smaller useless crufty memepile. Opabinia regalis 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OMG Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete /cruft. Eusebeus 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete must be a while since I read slashdot because some of the "jokes" were new. Reasons as stated above: no sources, verifiability and cruftitude. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not verifiable at all. Recury 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]