Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adequacy Style Troll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED by Raul654, per his comment at the bottom. -Splash 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy Style Troll

I am submitting this VFD debate to the August 23 list, not because of a small number of votes (there are awfully many votes), but because it apparently wasn't submitted to the August 3 VFD listing. I am not voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Del Nonnotable neologism. For a www phenomenon, a pitiful count 59 of unique google hits. mikka (t) 01:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Try looking at Google again. I get 4,430 [1] - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I get slightly less if I use this Google search - Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Without the quotes, most of the results are for pages that just happen to have the words "adequacy" and "style" (or less often, "adequacy" and "troll" or "style" and "troll"). I'd estimate less than 80 of the pages actually refer to the subject of the article. Google Groups gives one hit. Google gives 59 with quotes. --Carnildo 03:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I conceded the point. If you'd like, I can delete the article myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The subject article is linked with trolling in general, and the website adequacy.org, google test for this is useless Adamn 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Google news search - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I get 165 hits for "Adequacy Style Troll" in quotes, all but 59 of which disappear by filtering out the subtitle "a brief refresher". So more than half the Google hits are copies of or references to the same single article. Dystopos 05:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 01:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - hardly. Very notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 3 August (UTC)2005
  • Keep. Informative article, valuable insight into trolling. --Timecop 05:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. The only person who wants to keep it, it seems, is the author. And it's not what I'd call "very notable." -- Blackcap 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, considering this VfD has been open for no more than about 30 minutes. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Special:Contributions/Blackcap - 4 edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry--didn't check the time. It's true; not many edits, but it's a fresh username and I have been using Wikipedia for several years now. Blackcap 17:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You must keep this, If you delete it there will be alot of people who put it back up. You cannot argue with hundreds of trolls! You are repressing Troll Culture and our way of life. Perhaps if you were interested in learning about our ways you would be more tolerant. anonymous - 21:56, 2 August 2005 (EST)
    • What life? Delete. Agentsoo 02:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Would you make fun of black people and their way of life? Just because we are different, doesn't mean you have an excuse to make fun of us. We are a unique culture on the internet Trolling is our way of life, Many people don't understand why buddhists meditate, some make fun of them for doing so. Those people are ignorant, just like you. anonymous - 22:21, 2 August 2005 (EST)
    • I favour your vote but oppose your obviously inflammatory reasons. We will never be intimidated into not deleting an article. Ignore the straw man. Deco 04:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Resisting the urge to say "It's a Kuro5hin thing... you wouldn't understand." This is without a doubt webforumcruft, but it's all true and it's all verifiable. Although he would later go on to become a troll himself, Localroger's article is right on target. While much of the article is only of interest to K5/Slashdot/Adequacy weenies, I think we could all benefit from a good study of the psychology of well-executed trolling. It is possible to hold a good-faith opinion on both sides of the deletionism/inclusionism debate. Certain items undoubtedly do not belong on Wikipedia. As Americans of faith, we should oppose attempts to infiltrate this encyclopedia with the witchcraft and homoeroticism of Harry Potter, for example. How do we objectively decide what to delete and what to keep? "Erring on the side of caution" dictates that we keep an article in the absence of a compelling argument for deletion (such as godlessness). With that heuristic in mind, I see no reason to delete the article in question. FYI, Localroger has also written an excellent treatise on post-singularity zombie rape [2]. I laughed, I cried; it was better than Cats. Rhobite 02:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • But it's so poorly written. Delete or Rewrite
  • Keep Trolls are an important part of Scandanavian mythology. And, as Wikipedia becomes ever more English-speaking-centric, it is precisely these minor cultural references that will come under attack, especially from the Christian right. forgotten 02:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC) User has only 2 edits Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this as written (or as titled) makes for a good article. The phenomenon is of interest, but not the way it's presented here. JRP 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm... {{sofixit}}. If you are not arguing against the notability or verifiability, I fail to see how this is a valid vote. I can point you to many articles that are terrible, yet not a valid deletion candidate. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I realize you are an administrator and I show deference to that fact, but you may want to step back a bit from this. Your reply to Blackcap was a low blow and just about at the level of name-calling. Let's be civil here and let the process work, one way or the other. JRP 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, don't show deference to the fact that I am an admin (really!). If you feel I've been rude or obnoxious, say so. There is no excuse for any admin behaving badly... if I am having a bad day (whatever), then I should take a wikibreak and come back later. I realise I've been a bit short with people lately (dealing with too many controversial articles does that to you), and will most likely take a short wikibreak soon. My point stands, I just apologise if I was rather abrupt. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. The unorthodox inclusion of this on the DYK template by Ta bu shi da yu to promote the topic also does not sit well with me.--nixie 02:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies for this. Was not attempting to promote the article, this was more a failure to read the procedure. I offered to rollback, but someone got to it before me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. Neologism and non-encyclopædic. It seems like a troll in and of itself (though not quite a self-serving example of the form it purports to describe). At best there could be an abbreviated section of it merged into the article on Internet trolls, though even that's a stretch. The technique or form could be described without this blatant effort to assign this particular name to it.JimD 03:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record, I am not a troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • P.S. the "blatant effort" was done by K5 and Adequacy.org users. If you are implying I made this up, you'd be dead-set wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, non-encyclopedic, unverifiable. As written it's riddled with vague instructional statments, opinions and sarcasm. Even if it were re-written to be NPOV, this "style" of trolling is certainly not uniquely characteristic to Adequacy, but is instinctively childish behaviour that has been used in unproductive discourse since before any of us were born. If the designation of "AST" to describe such behavior is a Kuro5hin thing, then discuss it (briefly!) on the Kuro5hin article. Dystopos 04:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • In no way is this unverifiable. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I quote Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy) on obscure topics: "Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles." Dystopos 05:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Localroger is a credible source. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the article was created after a breif mention of it was made in the article about the troll group GNAA.

Ta bu was trying to turn a red link blue. But, if this article is not good enough to be on it's own, then I suggest a merge to Kuro5hin, since that is where AST got started at. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Hmmm... comment is fair enough, however should probably be merged into Adequacy.org. I think it is a decent topic in it's own right, however. That's why I created it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Wetfloor.co.uk has a much better-written treatment of the phenomenon [3] which gives a clue as to how this topic could be merged into Internet troll. Dystopos 05:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful and informative for me.--Jondel 05:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 06:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the best articles i've read on here yet. Adamn 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why on earth would you delete this article, unless it were to supress the concept? Dozens of folks worked hard on Adequacy, and thousands of users contributed to the site for several years! The AST is a very specific variant of the generalized concept of Internet troll phenomenon. If this article actually sees deletion, I will know that wikipedia is shamefully biased through this process and doubly so for crowing about principled behavior as a selling point for contributions. Consider your motives! --Momocrome 07:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) User's only edit Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment If AST is a "very specific" variant, there has been no evidence shown of its specificity except to say that, as a trolling practice, it's more involved than just calling people faggots. Dystopos 13:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Adequacy or Internet troll article. This needs massive cleanup; a lot of what it talks about is not specific at all and applies to any troll, then you've got portions that are how-tos and/or original research and would belong at Wikibooks. (A Wikibooks module on trolling? Hmm...) After cleanup I seriously doubt something remains that would warrant a separate article. JRM · Talk 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Wikify! Stop wasting time with spurious delete messages on interesting and well-written articles, when there's a lot of other stuff we could be doing. -Ich 09:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteGeni 12:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism and ban trolls. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. JamesMLane 04:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, and fix POV. I think something more along the lines of "Trolling on Adequacy.org" is a good title. The article has serious POV problems that need to be fixed, but it's not irreparable, and doesn't meet any deletion criteria I can think of. Deco 04:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Deco, very informative article on trolling. Klonimus 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Move what is necessary to Adequacy.org. This isn't notable enough for a separate article.
  • Delete, on second thought. Nothing worth merging. Aquillion 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

All who voted "keep" seem to miss an improtant issue: the article just reeks of original research, even if it is copied from kuro5hin. mikka (t) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, real original when the information is all from from a secondary source. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the one who invented the notion and published at its own site. And someone other copied it here. The term "original research" does not mean "research by wikiauthor." The problem is not authorsip; the problem is absense of peer review here. Exacly in the same way I may copy into wikipedia an article of some kook that describes his discovery of a hollow ball inhabited by trolls inside Moon. mikka (t) 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. claviola (talk to me) 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup (mercilessly). -- J. Yossarian 20:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The fact that an article is badly written is totally irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted. This is a wiki. If the writing's bad, we rewrite it. Penelope D 06:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Merge, mostly on account of all the sockpuppets. Some of the information would still be good to have in the adequacy.org, Internet troll, and/or kuro5hin articles. Penelope D 20:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Then redirect to GNAA and protect if necessary. Radiant_>|< 10:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. Nandesuka 12:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify it. --Apyule 13:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Little-used neologism whose article fairly reeks of original research. --Calton | Talk 13:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research. Where is this phenomenon documented anywhere else? A small amount of it may be worth adding to Internet troll--Tysto 16:13, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Normally, I'd view this article as a borderline keep, however, the efforts of the sockpuppets to force it on here have convinced me it isn't notable enough on its own. "Sockpuppet limit has been exceeded". Delete, and repress troll culture ;). --Scimitar parley 16:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research, Non-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge. Trollderella 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Where would you have it merged to? -Splash 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is either a neologism, original research, pure creativity or a subset of that list. In any of the 9 cases, it should be deleted. -Splash 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, GNAA trolling, supported by loads of sockpuppets. Zoe 23:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay about a neologism. Widespread usage not established. Gamaliel 05:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete troll thats not notable - don't feed the trolls! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Delete, Delete, sockpuppets away. --80.222.69.104 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with adequacy.org. Andre (talk) 23:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was just going to read this article. I hope it won't be gone tomorrow. Unsigned comment from 82.73.0.139 which has only 2 edits Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per 82.73.0.139 (unsigned above) (No, it's not me.) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to adequacy.org. I think that the GFDL text is worth having in Wikipedia, good summary of trolling techniques. -Kwh 05:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established.

Trolls and sockpuppets not withstanding, consensus is to delete. I've deleted. →Raul654 20:44, August 29, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.