Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked and Petrified (2)

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 redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena, there is not a clear consensus for outright deletion. If anybody wants to merge parts of this, I will leave the history intact so that people can do this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naked and Petrified

This article was nominated for deletion in September, 2004 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naked and Petrified). The vote received 21 Delete or Merge votes and only 8 Keep votes. For some reason the vote result was listed as "no consensus" by the admin. I believe this article is basically pure trollcruft, similar to the hundreds of other minor examples of trolling that people keep trying to add to the internet troll page. There is some web presence, but over a quarter of the first 100 Google hits are Wikipedia or Wikiquote mirrors, and many of the rest are not in reference to the trolling. My vote is Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena. Madd4Max 11:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or weak merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, don't see why the nominator didn't just merge it instead of bringing it here. Kappa 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Had I pre-emptively merged it, and the result of the vote was Keep, then the information would have been unnecessarily duplicated. — Asbestos | Talk 13:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyone can merge or redirect even if the result of the debate is "keep". Some closers don't do redirects, allowing other users to do them. Not really sure why. -R. fiend 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's covered elsewhere (see Slashdot). I don't think it needs its own Wikipedia page; it's not that important.WolfKeeper
• Trolling is not notable and not interesting. No one cares. Delete. Agentsoo 13:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trollcruft. (Note: in order to avoid "lack of consensus" from a split in the redirect and delete votes, miraculously leading to a keep, this vote can be couted as a redirect if it will help build consensus). -R. fiend 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to slashdot trolling phenomena; where Naked and Petrified is already mentioned. If the nominator had just done this, instead of wasting VfD's time, the question would be over. Septentrionalis 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator in question preferred only to waste the time of those editors who could be bothered to post here. As the nominator saw it had already been through VFD once and was kept, he thought it might be prudent to ask the opinion of the community. He decided not to waste anyone's time who did not want to vote here, however, and so chose to make this vote non-compulsary. — Asbestos | Talk 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is an article on the activities of a single troll on Slashdot. If it were the ONLY troll on Slashdot, it might be notable. Unfortunately, given the way Slashdot is, an article on a user who WASN'T a troll might be more notable. ;-) Xaa 17:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Martg76 18:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pompeii. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Septentrionalis; delete content. — RJH 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to slashdot trolling phenomena as above. Brighterorange 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, who cares about a troll, foldy-roll? In case of non-deletion, redirect per Septentrionalis. -Splash 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since this troll is already mentioned in slashdot trolling phenomena no need for a merge, nd this is not a term people are likely to look up, so no need for a redirect (although no harm would be done by one). DES ^(talk) 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly not independently notable; akin to writing about our favourite wikipedians. Flowerparty ^talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Flowerparty, but if deletes can't build a consensus, Merge or redirect. CanadianCaesar 21:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC) CanadianCaesar 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a minor variation on the theme of Slashdot trolling. To prevent a split between "delete", "merge", and "redirect" votes from resulting in a conclusion of "keep", this vote may also be interpreted as "redirect" or "merge" if doing so will result in a consensus. --Carnildo 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Again. Please. Nandesuka 12:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trollcruft. Uppland 12:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A single troll on slashdot. Encourages trolls (and others) to create an entry. Wikipedia isn't Trollopedia. KevinGovaerts 13:08:14, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
• Delete nn troll. JamesBurns 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator.--nixie 22:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and somewhat incomprehensible. McPhail 19:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ;Bear 21:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider ~~~~'s vote to be valid. To follow it would consitute harm in and of itself.WolfKeeper

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.