Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture

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 of the debate was that there is obviously no consensus for deleting this. Ashibaka tock 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot subculture

No sources. Yes, it links to Slashdot posts; however, extrapolating anything from those posts is original research. I don't see anything on this page that is not original research. Yes, there are specific posts that support claims, but there is no evidence that those posts are part of a trend. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep You know, it doesn't meet my requirements, but it's clarified, wikified, and amusing. And I have never read slashdot. So, I'll go for Wikipedia is not paper. TKE 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I like it too, but unfortunately WP:V is "non-negotiable". Ashibaka tock 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I figure it will be deleted, but I had to weight in :) TKE 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting, but appears to be original research. dbtfz^talk 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to weak keep, per Sjorford's comments below. The article contains useful, verifiable information, and is not necessarily the kind of thing WP:NOR is intended to exclude. I would change to "strong keep" if some reputable sources other than slashdot itself were cited. dbtfz^talk 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable by any adult without specialist knowledge. 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit!

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.(from WP:NOR) + slashdot is a reliable primary source about itself. kotepho 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• You can verify that individual posts have been made which follow the memes outlined on the page, but you can't verify that this is a staple of Slashdot, or part of a "culture". Nobody can verify that without a difficult study which would make this original research. Ashibaka tock 03:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• `"3. profit" OR "3) profit" OR "4. Profit" OR "4) profit" site:slashdot.org` 16,500 hits. kotepho 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• `"in soviet russia" site:slashdot.org` 29,600 hits. You could click on results at random and notice that they are posted by a plethora of different users. While it doesn't prove that there is a cultural phenomena causing it is does give evidence (at least IMHO). kotepho 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've changed my mind. Whle I still think that this is verifiable I do not think it is in the spirit that we need it to be. I'm sure that most of it is accurate and anyone would not disagree with me that has watched /. for a while, but what if slashdot is not around in 10 years. How would we verifiy it then(for the purpose of this thought experiment forget about archive.org/google cache/whatever)? What about 100 years from now? It would be nice if our modern cultures were described somewhere, but I do not think something trying to be an encyclopedia(in the sense of a source of reliable information) is the proper place. kotepho 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I would have suggested moving this to the main Slashdot article, but it turns out that the subculture article is longer than the main Slashdot article. And, it's pretty amusing too. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lacking sources does not mean an article should be deleted, if that were the case, half of Wikipedia would disappear. The subject seems legit and harmless. Tag as needing sources. -- Samuel Wantman 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, as per Ashibaka. --moof 06:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom, no sources = pure speculation = not encyclopedic and has no place here. --Hetar 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —- the fact that nobody has written a book about Slashdot yet might make this article unverified, but not unverifiable. I really dislike misuse of the term "no original research" — that policy isn't intended to prevent research from primary sources, because that's what you're supposed to do when writing articles, it's intended to prevent original opinions. — sjorford (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm in a bad mood today, so weak delete. Seems to be right on the cusp. Certainly you can write an article on subcultures, and most of these statements can be verified, but they aren't here and the article as a whole seems to be a fairly pointless summary of a nn subgroup.Vizjim 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Are you kidding me? This is a huge part of the Slashdot culture and INVALUABLE to people looking up Slashdot and trying to understand it. This is like deleting an article on Apple Pie when relating to the "culture" of the US. This is a page about a culture, not some spam article about a message board or a claim about how magnets cure joint pain. Even claiming this is non-verifiable is ludacris and a disgusting perversion of the intent of the rules. --Mboverload 10:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  Please try and keep things civil; there's way more chance of people paying attention to what you're saying. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable and as Slashdotcruft. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unverifiable and cruft. --Terence Ong 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that this is overwritten /.-cruft (Inexplicably, given the amount of detail, no mention is made of Danger Will Robinson! one of the most popular /. memes). But reading through part of it, it is accurate enough. It just needs some major excision work. Eusebeus 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, IF, it's a decent article, albeit crufty, and keeps the size of the parent article down. I'm all for deleting unverifiable articles, but this is unverified, not unverifiable. Perhaps those feeling strongly about keeping the article might like to add reliable references to the article. If decent references can't be added to the article by the end of this AFD, please consider this a delete. Proto||type 11:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Slashdot (keep in any event), prune and rewrite to remove POV. Celcius 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clean it up if you want. JeffBurdges 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep poorly written and full of crufty goodness, but still ample grounds for a decent article. Keep and put on cleanup.--Isotope23 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally over the top. Merchbow 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: While 1. Read /., 2. ???, 3. Profit! is absolutely priceless, the article's flaw is that most of the content is pop culture references that happend to occur on slashdot, not an actual subculture that is specific to slashdot. And every chat/message site has its own jargon, including Wikipedia. Peter Grey 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not every article on Wikipedia has to be about wars and politicians. This article is verifiable, notable, not original research, and it adds some happy variety to the encyclopaedia. Hook me the hell up. Lord Bob 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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.