Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trolltalk

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Trolltalk

---

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.3.214 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING SOCKPUPPETS

Many sockpuppet comments and votes appear to be from trolls arguing for deletion.

66.177.*.* (Comcast subscriber in Florida)

• diff=15364544 - nom. to delete
• diff=15490141 - vote to delete

12.46.236.158 (Sheraton in Reading, PA)

• diff=17869119 - shows familiarity with Trolltalk
• diff=17863964 - vote to delete, posing as non-Trolltalker

4.[89,226,253].*.* (Level3 subscriber in Dallas)

• diff=15518776 - shows familiarity with Trolltalk
• diff=15448666 - shows familiarity with GNAA
• diff=15811428 - vote to delete, posing as non-Trolltalker

4.155.72.176 (Level3 subscriber in Baltimore; likely sockpuppet of Level3 subscriber in Dallas)

• diff=17888123 - vote to delete

There are more sockpuppets (including most, if not all, the anonymous "delete" votes), but these should be enough to demonstrate that if you voted to delete this article because "sockpuppets want to keep it," you have been trolled. (IHBT too, for spending the past hour digging through this page's history. Good work.)

Comment: Doesn't this pretty much nullify this vfd? I mean, if afcassidy was sockpuppeting his own self-righteous anti-trolltalk crusade, why should the vfd be allowed to stand? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trolltalk notable, by the way.

---

What is the status of this vote?

This is the second VfD for this article, first was 27 April 2004 - 3 May 2004; no consensus was reached. See Talk:Trolltalk

"since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia? Delete Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005

Votes to delete

• Delete, nn. --W(t) 07:26, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --pile0nades^{Talk | Contrib} 08:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why "obviously?" It's not obvious at all why you seem to want it deleted.
• Delete. If sock puppets want to keep it, then it should go. — P Ingerson (talk) 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—I've seen articles ten times more notable than this silliness that have been deleted. We need to stop having one standard for internet trivia and another standard for everything else. Everyking 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. — mark ✎ 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 19:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trollcruft, sockpuppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 20:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, what is it with you people?? The slashdot trolling phenomenon and associated articles make for some of the best, most entertaining/informative reading on Wikipedia. The trolltalk entry is part of that. Why all this deletionist mania?? What's to be gained by eliminating good articles just because some people you dislike have contributed to them? Babajobu 21:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is an encyclopedia, a forum for truth and accuracy. These "troll groups" support the very opposite of truth and accuracy. I am not aware of any encyclopedia of any merit that suspends integrity and allows the publication of lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff, just because those things can be "funny". The fact that something is "all in good fun" (a matter of opinion) does not excuse any indiscretion and make it automatically acceptable for every venue. There are many appropriate places for anarchistic comedy but a serious and fact-based encyclopedia is not one of them.
      • So the pages about frauds and impostors and terrorism should be removed too? Mind you, they don't contain any frauds or lies at all, nor does this article. Can you prove otherwise?
      • Comment: If you want an encyclopedia to be a "forum for truth and accuracy," you really should prevent people from anonymously making edits to it. Also, as I am sure you're aware, because of this open nature (not preventing anonymous edits to articles), Wikipedia is considered a bit of a joke when it comes to content that encyclopedias are traditionally consulted for. This is simply an attempt by whoever started this VfD to stifle and suppress a certain demographic. If we only have articles about Slashdot, CmdrTaco and the editors et al., we're showing a certain amount of bias toward that side of site. Like it or not, Trolling is definitely a huge part of the Slashdot culture.
    • With all due respect, you are absolutely missing the point and also, I think, compromising Wikipedia's mission. Of course we do not want Wikipedia to include "lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff". If the trolltalk entry contained LNVF I would support its deletion. But it most certainly does not. The article is NOT itself a troll. Rather, it describes the activities of trolls. This is a crucial difference, and, honestly, it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. It's the same difference between an article on al Qaeda, and a piece of al Qaeda propoganda. Wikipedia would obviously include the former, but exclude the latter. Would you argue for deleting the al Qaeda entry because "Wikipedia is not here to wage jihad"?? Babajobu 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think this article should go, I believe judging the merit of an article by whether or not sockpuppets vote to keep it is absurd, and such votes should not count. Everyking 21:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If an article's support comes almost entirely from sockpuppets, that's strong evidence that it's nothing by a vanity article created & maintained by the very people the article is about. Vanity articles can sometimes be hard to identify but the character & identities of the persons editing/supporting them can help to determine if an article's only purpose is self-promotion.
    • Yes. It might sound absurd in theory, but in practice any article that deserves to be kept on merit, won't attract sockpuppets because it doesn't need them. Only articles that "should go" will atrract socks supporting them, because they're the only ones that need them. It's a useful rule of thumb. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's a crap rule of thumb. With that as our standard, we would delete every article related to Islam, the Holocaust, Ukraine, Sino-Japanese relations, and god knows what else. Babajobu 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, but how often do serious articles about Islam, Sino-Japanese relations, etc. get nominated for VfD in the first place? And when they do, it's usually socks wanting them deleted for not supporting their POV. And then the corollary applies: If the sockpuppets want to delete an article, it deserves to be kept. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't realize the rule of thumb only applied when an article was already up for deletion. I thought it was a general way of determining which articles (in VfD stage or not) were worthy of deletion. Okay, so even in this more tightly circumscribed form, and even when we invoke the corollary you describe (in which sockpuppets are voting for deletion, thereby guiding us to "keep") we must still recognize the mutliple exceptions to both the corollary and the proper rule. For example, some articles go to VfD (new anti-semitism, for example) and have POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides. In these cases we must invoke an exception to the corollary of the circumscribed form of the rule. It is at this point that I think we should realize that we're better off trashing the rule altogether, and voting not based on a dubious rule-of-thumb regarding how other votes have been placed, but rather according to the merits of the article. Babajobu 23:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But this isn't a hypothetical situation with "POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides". Is it? — P Ingerson (talk) 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable forum. Martg76 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more notable articles have faced deletion than this thing. let it go. 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You say that like it's a good thing. Stop deleting notable articles. You do not own wikipedia, and are yourselves neither notable, nor especially good judges of notability.
    • You know that for sure? If sounds a lot like a Personal Attack on a lot of these voters to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • These are the same people who call non-sockpuppets sockpuppets. I voted to keep and was instantly mis-identified as a sock puppet by one of these crack investigators. Many voters seem to not have even read the trolltalk entry. They make false accusations about GNAA association, and persue vendettas against trolls in general which clouds this vote. Their judgement deeserves to be questioned.
      • (Unsigned Post by Bit trollent)
        • Comment Until this vendetta against trolls ends and Wikipedia regains their impartial nature, this site will continue to be considered a joke in the vast sea of reference material available on the Internet. For Wikipedia to gain notoriety, these vendettas have to end.
        • To quote WP:NPA "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." So frankly, that doesn't matter. There is never an excuse. Besides, if you are not a sockpuppet, your contributions prove you are a Meatpuppet. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Meatpuppet?! You have just made a personal attack! Rather than respond to what you said, I will just express my outrage at your personal attack. Do not do it! Do not read it! Delete it! --bit trollent
            • "Meatpuppet" is an accepted term in a Wikipedia policy. (WP:SOCK) If you object to it, I suggest you either try to change Wikipedia's Sock Puppet policy or else make some serious contributions. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot encyclopedia. May deserve a brief mention at Slashdot. Delete or redirect (and possibly merge). - Mike Rosoft 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, and being such it should contain articles on a wide variety of topics. Again, by deleting this, Wikipedia shows a bias toward the editors and "group think" mentality of Slashdot. While a large amount of Trolls have a destructive nature, many posters on Slashdot are classified as Trolls simply because they do not agree with the standard line of thinking agreed with by many of its regulars. Trolling is and shall most likely always be a large portion of the Slashdot culture, and deleting this article harms the impartiality of Wikipedia and punishes many because of the actions of a few.
• Merge and redirect with the main Slashdot article. Cleduc 00:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sockpuppet magnet. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, or merge in Slashdot. Tuf-Kat 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please do not feed the trolls. —Stormie 09:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain why the existence of this article is feeding the trolls. Is the article about Terrorism feeding the terrorists?
• Delete, sockpuppetry Proto 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IMO, NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sockpuppets burn in wikihell. --Scimitar 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is unprofessional and juvenile. Try to keep your comments at least somewhat mature. Is there a maturity policy here that would prevent users like this guy from expressing their somewhat tactless opinions?
    • Wikipedia is not my profession. Wikihell, furthermore does not exist, except as an abstract, ie. wikihell- the place where voters are whose votes are disregarded because they are examples of sockpuppetry. Additionally, I might point out that if you were offended by my comment, you admit to being a sockpuppet, as I said only sockpuppets burn in this fictional place. If you aren't one, it doesn't apply to you, does it? --Scimitar 22:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • By that logic, if I am offended by someone using a racial slur against a member of a minority group that I am automatically a member of that minority group. This is, of course, completely wrong. I appreciate you trying, though - it's interesting to see how many people are gullable and ignorant enough to fall into fallacy.
• Delete Unencyclopedic Barneygumble 21:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How does one troll for trolls? This article should be somewhere else, maybe in Slashdot Trolling Phenomena. --Mtrisk 08:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Splat. Ambi 14:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete': Disregard my earlier vote for keep. I have change my mind.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete': This article is stupid.216.145.253.226 03:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Above comment posted by anonymous user, probably a deletionist sockpuppet. Babajobu 03:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Use of the word "deletionist" is quickly becoming the hallmark of a troll/meatpuppet. I've not seen any rational person ever use this word, just vandals and admitted troublemakers.
      • Comment -- Dear deletionist sockpuppet: welcome to Wikipedia! To get acquainted with the widely used wikiterm "deletionist," I suggest the following link: Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. There you will find people much like yourself who proudly announce their preference for mindlessly deleting good Wikipedia content. Enjoy! Babajobu 03:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to piss off the trolls, vandals, vote forgers, and sock puppets. And because this is a vanity article constructed entirely by and for [and based entirely on the unreliable word of] the aforementioned trolls, vandals, vote forgers, and sock puppets. 207.69.79.31 03:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That is quite a godly level of clairvoyance you have there. I might have a need of your super-power. Please contact me at, well, if you're as good as you claim to be then you already know how to contact me.
• Delete: Can anything in this article actually be verified? Do we really trust trolls to write an accurate article about themselves and their activities, especially when there's not any supporting evidence that any of this is true? And what about the "no original research" rule? I think Wikipedia's being trolled. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is a wankish autobiography of very questionable authenticity.12:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.36.194 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 Jun 2005
  • Can you prove any of your statements? This article doesn't seem to me like written by trolls, it even says " the discussion has degraded into dating tips, re-hashes of racist jokes and fanboy arguments.". Read the article again, please, it seems you haven't done it!
• Delete. Unverifiable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is "sockpuppet supported" a valid reason for deleting an article? I don't think so! BTW, what are the unverifiable parts in your opinion?
• Delete with Extreme Prejudice I went to the "discussion forum" in question. There was hardly anything there but mountains of incoherent robot-generated child porn stories apparantly pieced together (badly) by some Markov-chain script. Even worse, they were the most intelligent posts on the forum. The rest was mostly a bunch of mindless one-liners of kids hurling grade-school insults at each other, exercising their limited vocabularies of racial, ethnic, and sexual-orientation-based slurs; and bragging about "muh dick" while making grand pronouncements about the comparative inferiority of the genitals of their rivals. Lame, boring, stupid, and completely un-noteworthy. 4.89.254.192 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Learn how to spell OKAY? THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.201.102 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 Jun 2005
  • Comment - I don't really care about this article, its not noteworthy, etc. But why in the F*** does it matter if the group in question is childish, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc? Does this all of the sudden become the criteria whether an article should be placed on Wikipedia or not? In summary: I disagree with your opinion. Instead of saying "delete" on valid grounds such as non-noteworthyness, everytime an article like this or the GNAA one comes up, we have Wikihypocrites like you who apply a DIFFERENT set of standards to these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.204.182 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 Jun 2005
    • Comment What's even slightly noteworthy about an autobiography written by a bunch of overgrown schoolchildren about their "adventures" sitting in their parents' basements posting anonymous messages to an anonymous web forum (that hardly anybody knows even exists, or cares) trying to "pwn" the other 3-5 anonymous participants via anonymous exchanges of racial slurs and toilet humor?4.226.60.177 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article tries to make something non-notable notable. --Kiand 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Slashdot. —Theo (Talk) 16:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Deserves a minor section in slashdot article. illWill 21:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 20:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to cancel out the forged vote -- that was the most disgusting and cowardly act I have ever seen and I hope they (the Trolltalk crowd) lose the VfD because of it. 12.46.236.158 30 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• DeleteGeni 30 June 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• Delete, does not adequately describe the subject matter. 4.155.72.176 30 June 2005 11:34 (UTC)
  • According to official Wikipedia policy[1], "does not adequately describe the subject matter" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Bk0 1 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
    • Nothing in Wikipedia policy states that an individual vote for deletion has to state a valid reason in order to be counted. Many votes state no reason at all, nor or are they required to. Therefore YOU FAIL IT (you know damn well what it is).
• Delete because I have a vendetta against trolls -- in the sense that I think that should find someplace to troll other than Wikipedia. 66.155.212.26
• Delete Just another sock-puppet vote. Pay me no heed. Thanks. 193.77.153.149 1 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Votes to keep

• Keep. Trolltalk is rather known throughout the Slashdot community. Slashdot editors don't pay attention to anything, as any regular will tell you, by the number of duplicate stories and the occasional brokenness of the website, like the search feature. -- claviola (talk to me) 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other more influential and important online forums have had their articles deleted. TrollTalk is not noteworthy enough based on those standards. Afcassidy 2:55, 18 June 2005

Afcassidy, it's obvious that you have a vendetta against this topic for some reason and your motives should be questioned before this inquisition continues.

Proof or STFU, n00b.

• Keep, the trolltalk sid: a) is the oldest continuously used thread on Slashdot, b) has the highest post count of any thread on slashdot, despite regular purges, c) if it wasn't purged its post count would be astronomical, six figures or more, d) is the only "hidden", user-created thread left on slashdot, and as such is a historical curiousity if nothing else. Notable. --Bk0 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You have got to be kidding me. Someone goes to the trouble of creating an free encyclopedia and some clowns just see it as an opportunity to go around telling peope that their interests are not not notable. All this information on things I don't care about is driving me crazy! I must delete it! I'm not trying to troll here, but good lord. What is wrong with you people? Addendum 17:46, Jun19, 2005: I am not a sock puppit. I am a slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~bit%20trollent) with a normal if occasionally trollish posting history. I am not, nor is trolltalk affiliated with the GNAA. Get over yourselves. --bit trollent 17:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this vote was cast shortly after a "call to arms" was posted in the Trolltalk forum (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=12856190) asking for help to derail the VfD - you can expect many sock-puppet accounts to be created over the new few days for purposes of voting "keep" on this article. Trolltalk is affiliated with the GNAA, which has used sock-puppets, spamming, and intimidation to survive four votes for deletion, bragging about "defeating Wikipedia" (http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia) after each one.
    • Comment -- There is no established connection between the GNAA and Trolltalk. I urge whoever posted this to keep arguments for deciding the fate of this article based in fact and reality and not about some mindless vendetta against the GNAA. Attempting to invoke the name of this troll group in an attempt at using the emotions of other Wikipedia readers against this article is not only unprofessional, it is out of line and clearly juvenile.
      • Comment -- The close affiliation between Trolltalk and the GNAA is obvious to anyone who is familiar with either of them and can be easily proven by searching the Trolltalk Archive for GNAA and taking a look at some of the results. Although the archives don't go back this far, many will recall that the GNAA was born on Trolltalk, and even though they now have off-site forums most Trolltalk people are still GNAA.
        • Comment -- Can you provide proof that most "Trolltalk people" are GNAA? If not, I suggest you attempt to keep your comments to facts next time, please. This is a serious matter and it's not right for you to lie in an attempt to keep your POV the dominate one.
• Comment: I post sometimes on Trolltalk and I resent these libelous accusations that we're all affiliated with the GNAA. Gimme a break. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Abortion 19 June 2005 Trolltalk is an informative article and not a troll. Why then, should it be deleted?
  • Comment -- New user, probable sock puppet.
• Keep I don't see any reason for it to not be there. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. (See comments below) Babajobu 17:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cyberjunkie ^TALK 18:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Disregard this vote. I have changed my vote to delete (see above).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known and verifiable trolling phenomenon. Rhobite 21:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable part of internet/slashdot culture. Useful article, informative. --Timecop 11:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it has already survived a VfD, then I don't see why we're here in the first place. The maxim, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" was not written to cover attempts to delete another's work. Almafeta 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment We are here because Afcassidy has some sort of vendetta against Trolltalk. More than likely, he will continue to attempt to delete this article until he succeeds. I think someone needs to possibly scrutinize his motives in this deletion attempt.
    • Comment This is a lie -- you've failed to produce any evidence that Afcassidy was even AWARE of the previous VfD, or that Afcassidy has any personal interest in the article or that any form of bias or vendetta exists. It seems to me to be a case of someone who sees an article that he/she feels shouldn't be there and takes the logical step. Please stop with the unsubstantiated allegations; you're just making the entire pro-Trolltalk crowd look foolish.
      • Comment I'm not a member of the "pro-Trolltalk" crowd; I am a member of the "pro-Impartiality" crowd. I was mistaken about the Afcassidy link. However, there is much more logical grounding in keeping the article than in deleting it. I could see deleting this article if it were somehow consuming a large portion of the Wiki's resources or if it were obscene in some way, but this article does neither. By deleting this article, you're showing that you're biased toward the entire "Slashbotism" thing that most trolls are against. In regard to failing to provide any evidence that bias exists, look throughout this page. Many accusations are made linking Trolltalk to GNAA. This is obviously not the case, yet I do not see you policing these edits as you have mine. That alone shows some bias (perhaps not much) on your part.
  • Comment The last VfD was over a year ago; many things can change in a year. Furthermore, last time around there weren't a lot of people who wanted to keep the article -- more supported deleting it and some others wanted to merge the information into other articles. But with the vote split like that, there was no clear consensus and thus, for the time being, nothing at all was done.
    • Comment Correct, and now there is a significant number of users who want to keep the article, and a lot of spirited debate around the VfD. That alone speaks in favor of keeping the article, since the only legitimate reason for deletion now would be a vendetta against the subject matter. If Trolltalk wasn't notable there wouldn't be half the number of votes and comments here. --Bk0 02:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree with that completely. There is clearly plenty of strong feeling on the part of genuine Wikipedians that we should keep the article. If the article is now deleted on the outrageous grounds that some Wikipedians dislike the people who the article describes, I am immediately going to nominate the articles on al Qaeda, George Bush, and Abba for VfD. I hate those guys. Babajobu 04:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sure that wasn't serious, but just in case, WP:POINT. I should point out that most delete votes have stated "Not Notable", not "I don't like it" as a reason. I would vote keep for Abba even though I hate 'em. I vote delete for troll-talk because they are not-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rgoer 14:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Rgoer has only 3 contributions possible sock/meatpuppet? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment just not a particularly active contributor to the wikipedia... my one article, a manual on the Q3Map2 bsp tool, was deleted and moved to wikibooks. I do, however, keep up with things and I think that deleting the trolltalk article is a silly notion. Guess that would be strong/speedy keep, but who cares what I think, right? Rgoer 14:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia is uniquely well-placed to cover. I'm a non-trollish though not very active Slashdottian with Excellent karma ( [2] ), and I found this article interesting and informative. betsythedevine 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why censor something with such rich history?

The preceding comment was posted by the anonymous IP 67.167.203.93.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 11:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Note This anonymous vote from 67.167.203.93 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.

Wasn't logged in... sorry HackJandy

Note: HackJandy has only six contributions

Get over yourself already you moron. Go outside and have some social interaction instead of being a whiny internet nazi. Nobody's going to be impressed by your wikipedia penis length.

No personal attacks --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: you can increase the number of your own contributions by diligently pointing out how many contributions others in the discussion have made. Seriously, all this self-righteous paranoia about sockpuppetry is a little silly... it's obvious when votes are cast by sockpuppets (at least, it seems obvious to me), and more than a few of said sockpuppet votes seem to have been cast in favor of deletion. So let's just quit with all the witch-hunting and make with the actual discussion about the validity of the Trolltalk article--which I say is not as non-notable as some would have you believe. Rgoer 06:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • The 67.* and 68.* networks are HUGE. They include a good portion of the residential cable subscribers in America (Comcast, Time Warner/RoadRunner...) And by tracerouting the "anonymous" Keep votes (what's anonymous about them, anyway?) you'll discover we're not anywhere near each other geographically. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
• Keep Is informative. --Mateusc 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable forum with rich history, most of which is preserved only in this article. The arguments on this VFD about trolltalk and alleged connections and history would not even be possible anywhere without this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.105.30 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 Jun 2005
• Keep I showed my friend the trolltalk article and he was fascinated with the forum's history how utterly bizzare it. He, like I can't understand why someone would want to pull this information from wikipedia. Isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to aid research? How does deleting factual, non-POV articles (however much you dislike the subject) aid research?67.187.107.207 20:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note This anonymous vote from 67.187.107.207 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.
    • lol The 67.* network?! start->accessories->command prompt. "tracert 67.187.107.207". Then try it with the other ip adresses to confirm two use comcast, though in different cities with different routes and one doesn't even use comcast. 67.* network. amazing. 67.187.107.207 28 June 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  • Comment What about this article is factual? What about this article is non-POV? Nothing on either count that I can see. It's a completely unverifiable autobiography by one of the most biased and least trustworthy sources imaginable. Anyone who'd use this article in any sort of "research" is quite mad.4.89.240.113 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's clear that you have some vendetta against people you perceive as 'trolls', as you are responsible for the lion's share of Trolltalk demonizing on this VfD (under various similar dynamic IPs). That's your right, but it's disingenuous to try and spin it as some sort of objective interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it concerns your POV and nothing else. --Bk0 04:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, really? It's informative about a topic! Better delete the KKK page too because that group is 'worthless' in your eyes too, right?
  • Note This anonymous vote from 67.149.69.233 is one of three anonymous "Keep" votes from the 67.* network.
  • The 67.* network is gigantic. As I and another contributor have pointed out above, a simple traceroute of the IPs in question demonstrates they're not related except that they're all cable subscribers in North America. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
  • The KKK is way more notable than these guys. I don't know how many times I've said this: It's not about because a dislike of TrollTalk. It's because TrollTalk isn't notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The KKK article: 1. Was not written entirely by KKK members. 2. Contains information that can be verified by non-KKK-members. 3. Isn't being championed & defended by KKK sockpuppets. If, on the other hand, the KKK article WERE written entirely by the KKK, presenting their own highly distored version of their official "history" (i.e. how they valiantly and unselfishly saved the innocent women & children of the south from being raped and murdered by rampaging gangs of violent negroes after the civil war), and no REAL information on their history was available because nobody but themselves gave a shit about them, then I'm sure their vanity Wikipedia article would wind up deleted.4.89.246.65 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, mister deletionist sockpuppet cum anonymous voter, Have you even read the article? It's by no means an autobiographical fanboy hagiography of trolltalk. It is, rather, an excellent description of the forum, and includes unflattering info about how the moderation system has successfully limited the trolls' effectiveness. You're either a very poor reader, or you are intentionally misrepresenting the article because you have a personal distaste for the subject matter. And JiFish, as I think I've already demonstrated above, there are loads of far less notable articles than trolltalk on Wikipedia. The difference is that people dislike the subject matter of this article, and this is what is driving this VfD. Sorry, but that's just reality. On these grounds, the KKK or al Qaeda articles are just as fair game for deletion as trolltalk.Babajobu 15:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative article about a place with a rich history and unique place in internet culture. Yet another case of reactionary delete attempts by people with vendettas against so-called trolls. People and places with negative social agendas are just as deserving of coverage as anyone else. --Rankler 14:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 68.173.44.202 29 June 2005 23:37 (UTC) (not a sockpuppet—look at my contributions, I've been on this IP for at least the past month—and incidentally, isn't it strange that IP contributors are branded "anonymous" when it's actuallyi easier to keep track of us than to keep track of people hiding their IPs behind "non-anonymous" usernames, which can be changed at whim?)
  • That's wierd, because your contributions page says you have only used that IP on three days. --JiFish

(Talk/Contrib) June 30, 2005 00:28 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I've edited on three separate occasions over the past month, starting on the 28th of May. It's a dynamic IP that hasn't changed for at least that long. Is that weird? I'm not sure what you're suggesting--I really hope you don't think I'm pathetic enough to engage in sockpuppetry by visiting other people's apartments or workplaces and using their IPs or proxies or something like that. You think I care enough to do that? Honestly. If you guys think deleting a verifiably factual article is going to save Wikipedia from collapsing under the weight of its countless errors, omissions, biases, password leaks, libelous statements, pointless flamefests, and boneheadedly idealistic administrative decisions... well, that's your prerogative. I'm just a guy with a vote. 68.173.44.202 30 June 2005 01:35 (UTC)
      • Nice trolling, very convincing ... not. Can you verify any of the facts in the Trolltalk article? It's a big Adequacy-style meta-wank that nobody should believe. I thought autobiographies weren't acceptable as encyclopedia entries?
        • Every statement on that page is verifable by spending ten seconds with Google. Can you point out anything that isn't, either directly or by extrapolation from elsewhere on the internet? And bringing up Adequacy?! I think you must be the guy who's crapflooding the forum right now, am I right? 68.173.44.202 30 June 2005 01:53 (UTC)
          • Proof or STFU, n00b. 12.46.236.158 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)
• Keep: Informative article about another aspect of the slashdot trolling phenomenon/subculture. As I see it, if this is deleted, then Slashdot trolling phenomena should be deleted too. How are the two articles so different? I didn't know about trolltalk on Slashdot and found it amusing and informative. --Costyn June 30, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this article interesting and informative. -- Beland 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
• Keep. ""since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia?" - OK, so imagine a small terrorist organization to which their country doesn't give a fart about. Is that enough reason to say that it isn't an important part of that country? Many users there know. This is an interesting and amusing article, and MANY of the votes to delete seem to be heavily biased against trolls (so go and delete the Bin Laden or Nazi Party articles too!!!), and the others seem just to ignore what Trolltalk and Slashdot really is. 195.23.71.154 23:26, 3 Jul 2005 (GMT)

Comments not connected to votes

• Comment Oops, sorry. My penis isn't small enough to contribute to this discussion. I should like to point out however that you are all being trolled by the nominator, who also posted the comment on trolltalk about this vfd, keeps vandalising this page through anon proxies and vehemently replies to all keep votes with his typical "blah blah wikipedia is what I think it should be" bullshit. GJ.

Unsigned comment from 206.51.237.44 (talk · contribs), the fourth edit from that IP address.

• Del... I mean, keep, or er, comment, I guess, since I'm inevitably going to be accused to be a GNAA sock-puppet. I think you're all a bunch of retards. All of you who take this internet crap seriously. Honestly, what the hell? Go out to a club, get some woman drunk and have sex already. Trust me, you'll feel much better after you dip your shlong into a female creature for the first time, and suddenly, you won't care anymore if there's an article about trolltalk on your crappy internet encyclopaedia (which I've subtly vandalized in several ways btw, just for fun). Uh oh, but what have I just done? This comment is against wikipedia guidelines! Quick, someone nominate it on Comments for Deletion! Hahaha. Jesus. -- Who The Fuck Cares 00:01, 1 Jan 1970
  • Comment -- votes from anonymous users are not counted, also, everyone should be made aware that the term "female creature" is taken directly from the movie with a very offensive title (which I won't repeat here) which the GNAA is based around. The heroes of that movie have never encountered women before, and when one of them does encounter one, they all make a big show out of shouting "female creatures!" in shock and alarm.
  • Comment -- Why should we be aware of that? I can't see why anyone should care. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- It is evidence that Trolltalk is part of (or at least strongly aligned with) the GNAA, a group that has abused Wikipedia quite extensively and gone to great measures to keep its vanity articles up and that has publically announced itself as an enemy of Wikipedia.
      • Comment -- There is no evidence that trolltalk has anything to do with GNAA, other than the fact that they both troll slashdot. By all accounts GNAA hardly uses trolltalk at all, other than crapflooding it when a GNAA member is insulted. Stop with the paranoid generalizations. --Bk0 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment -- Trolltalk/GNAA connection. Please review these two-thousand three-hundred sixty-eight comments and let me know what conclusions you draw from them.
          • Comment A counterexample to invalidate your point: the KKK talks chiefly about blacks, but they aren't affiliated with them. Thanks for playing though.
          • Comment -- Congratulations on demonstrating that GNAA members post on trolltalk. It is a PUBLIC forum, genius. Anybody can post there. By your logic, the dozens of forums that have been vandalized by the GNAA are also affiliated with the GNAA. Search slashdot for GNAA and you will find similar results. But that's not what this is really about is it? You people have a vendetta against trolls. Stop deleting perfectly accurate, valid and valuble information just because you hate trolls.
• Comment This is the second attempt by Afcassidy to delete this article. I suggest that he has a bias in this regard and his integrity and motives should be questioned and taken into account before you vote.
  • Comment This is incorrect; the previous VfD was not by Afcassidy. For some reason the info about previous VfD (2004) on the Trolltalk talk page included the text of this VfD (2005) by mistake.
• Keep In retrospect, I believe that the trolltalk article should be kept. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005
  • WARNING -- This is a fake vote not cast by Afcassidy but by the anonymous vandal 66.82.9.80 who has vandalized this page several times. Please check all votes carefully to make sure they were actually added by the person "signing" them and not forged by the anonymous vandal, who will probably continue this foolishness. Proof of vandalism.
• Comment Keep it real now y'all
  • Vote by anon user 66.82.9.80 Celestianpower 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Congratz to whoever just deleted a string of legitimate comments, both Keep and Delete. Here was mine: Obviously no one who believes in Wikipedia believes, as Paul M claims to, that Wikipedia should include articles on anything and everything. But it really is starting to feel like Wikipedia is being taken over by people who think the project should only include articles on topics like Frederick the Great and China and Atomic theory, because these are the types of articles contained in dinosaur, Gutenberg, pre-internet encyclopedias like Brittanica. Like the hidebound architects in Ayn Rand stories who use fabulous new materials in the same tired way they used older, weaker materials. Grow an imagination, you deletionist fanatics!! Babajobu 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, My ISP, Comcast has a dynamic IP system. Just because we share the same IP doesn't mean we are the same person. Wikipedia is pretty popular you know. You've grown so paranoid with vandalism you've lost your ways Wikipedia. Anyway my comment was not to keep everything. But to keep things that are useful. And indeed trolltalk is a useful article that contains information on a well-known subculture. Also I'd like to add I'm a long time slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~Stalyn) - Paul M.
  • The deltionist tendencies of Wikipedia as a whole can be clearly seen from the consensus decisions to: a) keep every single school, regardless of notability, because some people like them, and b) keep pokemon, digimon, and whatever other irrelevant fancruft may be out there. So, although I am a deletionist, Wikipedia as a whole is, perhaps, not so hide-bound as is claimed.--Scimitar 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah let's delete trolltalk but keep your entry on Sean Brown.. who sucks and doesn't even play in the NHL anymore. Are you related to him or something? - Paul M.
• Comment How can you have a category Internet Trolls (which Wikipedia has) and exclude Trolltalk from it? Trolltalk is a place where trolls converse, thus being a part of this category. I don't see anyone trying to delete Meow_Wars, which is most definitely not as notable as Trolltalk.
  • Comment Trolltalk has next to nothing to do with trolling, it's just one of millions of no-topic social discussion boards out there, with the major difference that it's even smaller, more obscure, harder to find, and of even less consequence than the majority of the aforementioned millions. And if you think the "Meow Wars" entry should be deleted you're free to register an account & nominate it for VfD (I think anonymous VfD nominations don't count).
    • Comment. And when Meow Wars was nominated for VfD we didn't have various Meowers and their socks trying to disrupt the vote. I think that's one reason why it survived. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment You're part of the reason why Wikipedia has problems. This deletionist frame of mind isn't helping anyone. Again, the article survived a VfD before, so why are we even here? I predict that if the VfD fails this time, someone will just attempt one again and will keep trying to delete this article until they succeed.

• New Sockpuppet Alert -- Trolltalk is rallying its supporters again to come to Wikipedia to derail the VfD.
• (This comment was added by 4.253.45.144, then deleted by 66.82.9.11) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do we know you didn't post that or the first one to make it look like the keep votes are sockpuppets? also 1) I don't think many trolltalk posters care enough to come here and subvert the voting process 2) trolltalk posters are not a group with common interests beyond trolling, it's likely that they would come here and post anti-trolltalk comments in order to "troll" the poster of the rallying call.
• Comment ATTN deletionist vandals:

from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion)

Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. Again, the votes are not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.

Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.105.30 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 Jun 2005

• Question: as I look around Wikipedia and see a vast number of articles that are infinitely less notable than trolltalk, it strikes me as patently absurd that many of the delete votes claim "non-notable" as their justification. It leads me to wonder: does Wikipedia have any suggested criteria/guidelines for determining whether an article is notable or not? Otherwise people are free to vote "delete" for selfish, prejudicial reasons (e.g., "I hate trolls!" or "I hate Abba" or whatever) and then claim "non-notable". Babajobu 19:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can find a page less notable than trolltalk, please put a VFD on it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? A person could work a 40-hour week for a year and not ferret out all the Wikipedia articles less notable than trolltalk. For the first five, how about fnord, or Daniel A. Grout, or Penis panic, or Zzyzx Road, or pompatus? Since Wikipedia by its very nature has the ability to be wonderfully capacious in its subject matter, I think all those articles should be kept. But if we'd prefer a boringly traditional encyclopedia that only covers topics likely to be found in Brittanica or whatever, and if we are going to delete anything as or less notable then trolltalk, then we have A LOT of deleting to do. Babajobu 01:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I am not kidding. Firstly, I don't consider Penis panic, a condition documented by the World Health Organisation, less notable than a thread on Slashdot. I'd vote delete on Pompatus. I'd need to take a closer look at the others. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, Penis Panic is not recognized by the WHO. Koro is recognized by the WHO. Penis panic is a slang term apparently describing a number of phenomena, one of which is koro. Face it: trolltalk is more notable than a good few thousand other Wikiarticles. You just don't like the subject matter. Babajobu 21:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Fine, put a VFD on Penis Panic and i'll vote to delete it and re-direct to Koro. I'm not voting delete because I don't like trolls, I am voting delete because a thread on a forum isn't notable.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't a referendum on "Do trolls behave appropriately in Wikipedia?" The issue here should be purely whether or not the article "Trolltalk" should be deleted--and whether Wikipedia would be diminished by removing it. I think Wikipedia is uniquely well-placed to cover topics of great interest to small groups, because those topics will also interest people who want to learn more about such groups, Pokemonians, Plushies ... or even trolls. The non-notability criterion makes sense for deleting pieces about someone's high school band--it is destructive when it gets used to try to remove articles of real interest to many people (even trolls). betsythedevine 04:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Betsy, you are of course absolutely right. This VfD is the most disturbing thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia: a strong push to delete high-quality Wikipedia content because some Wikipedians personally dislike those who are described in the article. Even more disturbing, the "delete" crowd includes an administrator (Jayjg), who should really know better. I'm so disappointed in Wikipedia. I didn't think it was so easily compromised by prejudice and whim. Babajobu 20:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.