Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was Redirect to Troll (Internet). While the topic is notable as explained below, it is also too small to warrant an independent article. As a compromise, I am going to redirect Troll organization to Troll (Internet). (Non-admin closure.) Yuser31415 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Troll organisation: an organisation of trolls. And? No reliable sources, and you'll never guess which troll organisation keeps adding its link to the article. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a poorly written nomination. Guy, why would we want to guess which organization keeps adding its name? Why don't you spit it out! If it's irrelevant leave it out of the nomination. --Kevin Murray 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to troll (internet). Protect if necessary. Unless we have some verifiable information.--Docg 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; no sources. Chick Bowen 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand; This is a definite internet phenomenon, there are several such organizations around, like myg0t, GNAA, etc. Scarerah 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the user's second edit, after blanking his/her user talk from a standard speedy deleted article warning.10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per Doc and Chick Bowen, protect like we did for the disambiguation page that is related to the organization JzG references.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect just no good sources. Anomo 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect per nom.--Azer Red Si? 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:DENY and because the article isn't particularly encyclopedic. --Yamla 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If there is no verifiable information on the page, then the content should be removed. The article topic is valid and there is enough information for a stub. There is no reason to permanently delete this artice -- the current version should remain in the history for future editors to review. — David Remahl 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - They exist, they are notable. Stub. If there is a problem with content vandals that is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to just have more people watch list the article. Speedy close as a Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. F.F.McGurk 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Troll (internet), cite. This is a relevant topic, and sure, GNAA, myg0t, etc. may not be considered notable enough for their own article, but for them to not even receive mention is ludicrous. They are as important as any other internet community. -- Jmax- 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Troll (internet), per above. Dragomiloff 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Troll (internet), per above. Complete lack of citations and references UnseemlyWeasel 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and protect merge optional. Article consists of a vacuous dic-def, unsourced history, and mentions non-notable troll organizations as notable. Possible search term but not a necessary or useful article. Eluchil404 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Protect. Useful to have, and trolls are ( sadly ) certainly notable. WMMartin 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to troll (internet). This is a collection of OR and weasel words. - Peregrine Fisher 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reasons given to delete this particular article could easily be applied to Troll (Internet). I don't see any reliable sources in that article at all. --- RockMFR 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.