Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot

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 1. delete. 2. ??? 3. profit!!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring jokes on Slashdot

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]
Astonishingly pointless. Delete and sow the ground with salt. Vizjim 06:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love slashdot but this article really serves no purpose. Nicklob 14:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Delete

2. ????

3. Profit --Isotope23 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and unset the deleting admin's "evil" bit. A bunch of original research (imagine a Beowulf cluster of that). Would be a very very cool research topic though, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. (Form a virtual community / Internet culture research group on Wikiversity?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 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.