Okay, clearly I need to be more specific.
Am I the only one who's bothered that there's a concerted disruption campaign going on by a self-admitted bunch of trolls to remove blog articles, *not* on the grounds of whether they're notable or not, but on "blogs must be deleted on principle just for being blogs" grounds?
Am I the only one who's bothered that now that I've taken to flagging GNAA sockpuppets on some of them, the GNAA sockpuppets are in turn flagging *real* votes as sockpuppets?
Am I the only one who's bothered that the whole thing impairs the possibility of determining what the real consensus of legitimate users *is*?
Am I the only one who actually finds the idea of letting the GNAA disrupt Wikipedia for fun to be a *fundamentally* problematic thing *regardless* of the merits or lack thereof of the articles?
I'm not saying we should keep all blog articles; I'm saying that what's going on isn't providing a legitimate consensus on the notability or non-notability of any of the blogs under debate. There's even one AFD on their hit list which has been voted on *exclusively* by GNAA socks; not a single legitimate user has even said a *word*. What if it's then closed by an admin who doesn't know what's going on? Will that somehow be considered a genuine consensus on the article's non-notability?
The only consensus it's establishing that Wikipedia permits trolls to *dictate* Wikipedia content -- and I find it *exceedingly* hard to believe that I'm the only person who thinks that's not a consensus we should be encouraging.
Craig