Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sealioning

Sealioning

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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}}.

This is a definition and an etymology, and belongs on wiktionary. Not noteworthy or substantial enough for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempowaryacc (talk • contribs) — Tempowaryacc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep All of the reasons for deletion listed above except one are not valid reasons to delete an article. The one valid reason (not notable) has the obvious problem that the existing references establish notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This page is not written as a dictionary entry; sourcing is more than adequate to establish notability; the motivation for this AfD (by a single-purpose account) is dubious and no steps less drastic than nominating for deletion were taken first. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established by the references. As mentioned by XOR'easter, the article explains a concept and is not a dictionary definition. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere on this page or any sourced page is it articulated just what is so nefarious about people asking civilly for evidence of an unsourced claim. Are we supposed to take the author's word that all those people are evil trolls and the unsourced claim is somehow more credible than every other unsourced claim on the internet?

Aside from the definition itself is the notability issue. I see in the suggested links that this is somehow related to the Gamergate controversy. I don't think editors realize the impression this gives to people who aren't involved in Wikipedia daily. Wikipedia is not hard up for donations and new users because it desperately lacks Gamergate or Twitter content. The one time in my life I was ever interested in joining Wikipedia and really learning the interface and policies happened to be around the time the controversy page was created. It made me question who would want to come home from work just to edit war about that stuff for hours. The same 5-10 people probably, day after day. I bet if I checked the page history today, it would be the exact same users who were there years ago.

I would rather my girlfriend walk in on me watching porn than see me edit this page. Delete this article. Stop the madness. I don't know how to put my I.P. address here but this is where it should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:8600:90B8:A8BF:99A0:6B91:A0B7 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — 2601:192:8600:90B8:A8BF:99A0:6B91:A0B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly passes GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AfD From a single-purpose account? Don't feed the trolls. ApLundell (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was already an AfD for this page a year ago. It was kept then, and the topic has only gained more sources since. Are we done yet? XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]