Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitrolling

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 delete. The numbers are close to even in this debate, but the keep arguments have to be given significantly less weight because of their failure to make a case for the retention of the article by reference to relevant inclusion standards (eg notability guidelines). The delete !votes do reference such standards, therefore their case is significantly stronger, and there is a consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitrolling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN term [1] CTJF83 chat 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete Neologism intended solely to mock Meg Whitman. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Part Promotional and part inappropriate mocking of Meg Whitman. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:G10? CTJF83 chat 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Especially in the broader context, I'd agree that this is an unsourced disparagement of a living person (and her campaign) and thus qualifies as G10. Regardless of the "speedy" part, this is clearly not appropriate material for any number of reasons. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete New term made up for a mistake just made today. Unlikely to go anywhere. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. It was created as a joke in references to this thread on slashdot: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/10/20/2147222. Please note that the post on slashdot was 2 minutes after the article was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.23.238 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article easily qualifies for a speedy delete, sure, but something tells me it'll be back. Think Streisand effect. Kethinov (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well at such a time where it passes GNG, the article can be recreated CTJF83 chat 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Intended only to gain karma on slashdot: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1831456&cid=33968216. Not noteworthy. Afforess (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above - this event isn't going away in the hive mind. Besides, slant rime is on our side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.119.3 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I was tempted to go for redirecting to the article on Whitman's campaign but it seems that this term isn't even being used that much on the internet. Only two of the first 10 Google searches even use this term and one of them is this article. If the situation changes we can consider it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfect example of public relations screw-ups paralleling reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.229.101 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see both this term and 'megrolled' on twitter, slashdot and facebook. Clearly it is a subtle variation of rickrolling, which has a lengthy wikipedia entry. It may be more appropriately hjfreakroll perhaps, but we must adhere to how it is used in the wild. For those who suggest delete, I have seen a lack of any solid reason for deletion. A political bias, one way or the other, is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Michaelok (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not a political one; rather, these sources do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources to establish notability. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There is no good argument to delete this. This term is more widely spread across the internet than most wikipedia articles. Deletionists are just lining up behind this one since they have nothing better to do in life. HebrewHammerTime (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the reason for your lack of WP:AGF? CTJF83 chat 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. It's not even a meme yet -- just a single-shot trolling.KiloByte (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Even though this article is written as a response on a Slashdot article, that doesn't mean this article doesn't have any merit. The term "Whitrolling" and "Meg-rolling" are already used plenty out there. Besides "Rickrolling" is a deliberate act to get someone to watch that particular song, and "Whitrolling" is an accidental copy-paste faux-pas. Different intentions in posting. Xiph1980 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think further examples will be added to the entry now that there's a term to describe this phenomenon, and now that the Wikipedia article is becoming known. Whitrolling is also a substantially different phenomenon from the the kind described in the article into which this content would be merged. AmbassadorShras (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Almost all the Keep !votes are new our off long several month breaks for this !vote CTJF83 chat 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Slashdot troll. --BRIAN0918 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can we move it to a subheading under "Rickrolling"? We can redirect both "Whitrolling" and "Megrolling" to that entry. Wiki88V (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong bad keep All of the deletionists on this page have been whitrolled. Therefore it is notable. Well, unless you want ED to win, again. 132.206.3.157 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sure the article needs a little work, but give it a chance. 69.196.162.34 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism. Also, remember the difference between fame (or, in this case, un-fame) and notability. The event (but not necessarily the neologism for it) may have a place in the persons article, but the event per se should be typical for the fame in 15 minutes phenomena - and this is an encyclopedia. Not a red-top paper. Greswik (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2010 (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.