Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! trolling phenomena


 * 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 keep (no consensus). The last three unsigned "keeps" were all made by three different IPs shortly after each other, but were probably still made by the same person, so this is somewhat marginal and I am not entirely convinced this this phenomenon is notable or encyclopedic, but CanadianCaesar has made some valid arguments so I'm calling this a no consensus decision anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! trolling phenomena
vanity FlareNUKE 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

**This vote actually by User:71.71.8.202 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --FlareNUKE 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Proper protocol was not followed in creating the AfD. BlueGoose 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait-a-minute! I see what you mean! FlareNUKE, take a look at Template:AfD in 3 steps. I don't think you're supposed to copy the template into the body of the article! Please fix this and I'll come back with my vote. -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)  &mdash;Noted that FlareNUKE made changes to suit protocol. (So what's the verdict, BlueGoose?)  RlyehRising  13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete BlueGoose 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is clearly original research. And based on the page history, there have been persistent attempts to violate neutral point of view by adding vanity. The article also has notability problems&mdash;is this a legitimate phenomena? What published evidence supports this assertion? Has anyone written a book or even an article about this alleged phenomena? (And even then, the book or article would have to have been broadly distributed to be counted as a reliable source.) Additionally, if such a work were cited, all material in the article would have to be restricted to that source to conform to wiki's no original research policy. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. All material submitted should have been previously published and editors should stick closely to the original source. However, if an editor accumulated all this information and then had it published (by an independent, professional publisher; a photocopier doesn't count), and if said publication were broadly read by a sizeable number of people (at least nationwide), then the publication could be cited as a legitimate reference. Otherwise, I see no way around the no original research policy. As far as using "google searches" to substantiate the article, I don't give those much weight. One problem is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; so this article could already have been distributed across the net (thus biasing the web results). I would also be suspicious if a web site conveniently popped up to support everything asserted in the article. In any event, web cites (perhaps I meant web sites) should not be used as primary or secondary sources unless the author is recognized as a scholar in the particular field that he or she writes about. And even then, such information should (ideally) be mirrored in a paper-published form with a wide distribution. (Increasingly, I rely less and less on web sources; generally I only use web references if the author is a recognized authority and has published essays or books&mdash;in paper form&mdash;in his or her field.) -,-~  R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, please fix the nomination, rather than saying "procedural keep"! JPD (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried that, but good job being a douchebag about it. BlueGoose 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom plus second JPD's impressively restrained comment. MLA 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources -- Astrokey44 |talk 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content with Yahoo! -- 9cds(talk) 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, noteworthy phenomena.JohnnyBGood 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major subculture on one the world's most popular websites, and it has been addressed by Yahoo on numerous occasions. It is equivalent to the Slashdot trolling page and has survived vfd before. Tfine80 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable trolling arena. Kappa 09:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Internet phenomenons are tough for secondary sources, but trolling is real and problematic.  I say "for now" because as time passes and more Yahoo! patrons see it (I'm not one of them) they may cut down on material they can't confirm, and eventually what might be left is something to merge with Yahoo!. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as Tfine80 stated. Cyrock
 * Keep, notable
 * Keep, notable wiki ent
 * Keep, notable article. keep per norm. great content


 * 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.