Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot history

Slashdot history
Slashdot history was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Delete: All these Slashdot subarticles should be kept under the main Slashdot article. It's just one website.


 * Nah. Leave it. Nothing wrong with it. --Spe88 07:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this was listed by a anonymous user who is trying to blank every Slashdot page, but this may as well get a hearing on here Estel (talk) 08:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. utcursch 10:52, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak merge and delete. --fvw *  11:29, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging all Slashdot articles together. The separation is necessary since e.g. the article on trolling phenomena is extremely detailed, and that detail would be too distracting in an overview article. However, this one is quite short and history is pretty much always of fundamental importance to a topic. For that reason, I think this should be merged with the main article. Ideally, the content should also be changed into prose, but that will of course only happen if someone wants to do it. Fredrik | talk 13:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: lots of edits - it's obviously being looked after. If that's how the people maintaining the slashdot article want to organise it then let them.  Seems silly to force them to merge it all back in.  And why delete?--Tomheaton 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Tomheaton -- Ferkelparade &pi; 15:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I think it should be moved to History of Slashdot. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 17:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is. Wyss 19:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was this an anonymous listing?  Who nominated this?  Vandalism or not, this VfD should be removed.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am removing this anonymous VfD submission by User:198.97.67.56 as it was unfounded to begin with. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, anons can't submit things for vfd, so no need to even consider the merits. Shane King 23:42, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you please say where it is written that anons can't make vfd nominations? Paul August &#9742; 05:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's the second time in the last couple of days I am reading this - is there actually a mention somewhere in our policies that states anons can't nominate anything here? Anons can't vote, yes, but that's mainly because it would make sockpuppetry too easy...and I do not think the occasional listing by an anon is a major problem here on Vfd. If it's a spurious nomination, like this one, we can just vote keep and move on... -- Ferkelparade &pi; 00:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the policy page, it would be a biased and very partial stance, so it would be wrong to categorically ignore anons. Also, Shane King didn't bounce my nomination of Nintendo DS launch games even though I nominated it anonymously, so he's not even applying his personal policy consistently. 132.205.15.43 04:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We are required to sign listings. It's clear from that that anons can't list things.Dr Zen 00:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you vote to keep everything that any anon lists? 132.205.15.43 04:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Well maintained article about the history of a highly significant website. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with anon listings&mdash;we're always mistreating anons, it's a shame&mdash;but this should of course be kept. Everyking 07:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete . The N in NPOV does not mean nerd. This slashdot is all dedicated to the rantings of nerds. If this was Slashdot high school you would vote delete on the spot. Nerds are not notable, they think because they can write about nerdy stuff on a nerdy website they can get an encyclopedia written about them. I say no to nerds. Please Wikipedia administrators please delete all this nerdy junk. Supernerds don't read sites like this. There are many more useful articles to be created. Now watch how all the nerds try to discredit my vote using a logical fallacy. Supernerd. 15:14, 16 Dec 2004.
 * User:Supernerd doesn't exist. The above lines are an IP Edit by 195.188.152.14, who has authored articles like Supernerd. utcursch 06:57, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC).
 * Regardless of whether or not you approve of the sort of people who work on that site, it is one of the most notable on the Internet. Just because you don't read sites like that (neither do I, nor do I read other clearly notable sites like Stormfront or Internet Movie Database) doesn't mean we shouldn't inform people about them. If there are many more useful articles to be created, go help create them. Deleting articles like this is not the way to expand the usefulness of Wikipedia. Keep. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 02:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 21:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.