Talk:Sealioning/Archive 2

This is not a valid Wikipedia page
This is not a valid Wikipedia page and doesn’t add any value.

It’s obviously been set up by someone to win an argument on Twitter or Reddit but it existing adds nothing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place to win personal crusades.

suggest it should be deleted. 86.144.169.36 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What counts as topical debate and genuine interest?
I'm almost afraid (because this article is on the Wiki and not in the Wiktionary) that I will be perceived as someone sea-lioning by replying to this Talk page at an interval of years.

Yet it seems to me that the party that loses interest, or wants to escape topical debate by claiming that they are being harassed, are not as interested in the topic as the one they want a meme comic to portray as a troll.

I'm not affected at all by the presence of this article on Wikipedia, except for the fact that it's on the Wiki and not in the Wiktionary. I just didn't understand the word and found a meme in an encyclopedia.

Surely, this was some temporary thing long ago and no longer relevant, especially since - if it is trolling - there is already an article for that.

I just don't see it. What is this beyond some unknown person being trolled somewhere on some forum or social media and deciding s/he didn't have time time pursue the topic, if s/he were really honest? S/he just wanted to make a bold claim and then rather not answer questions from that. If it was a temporary experience that felt like trolling from asking for proof as Wikipedia asks of every edit, why not call it that and remove the article?

If it suggests persistence or staying on topic, how is this bad compared to some blogger wanting to hit and run? Surely Wikipedia can't arbiter in favor of that and have success. It's simply a poor decision that reflects badly on Wikipedia.

This is why I again suggest Deletion appealing to article 6, 8, 10, and 14 (second pillar of Wikipedia). I would support moving this to the Wiktionary, in order that it not taint the status of Wikipedia as an on-line encyclopedia. I have no stake in any discussion involving some persistent on-line intellect seeking truth from a statement they found correct or incorrect.

We have [] already.

We have [] already.

So, why is this page here?

Additionally, the "feigns" and "under the guise of", and "bad-faith" in the leading text are far beneath weasel-words, while observations that anyone can make are slapped with "citation needed" in a thousand non-controversial articles to require approval. This is a really bad article, according to what I think I know about Wikipedia standards.

Henrik Erlandsson 02:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Henrik Erlandsson 01:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)
 * "...escape topical debate "
 * Typically the term sealioning is applied in situations where there is no debate. No conversation.
 * Somebody has made an off-hand comment, and then moved on. The sealion is the one who repeatedly insists that a conversation must happen. (Usually despite the fact that they are a stranger to the person they insist should debate them.) If that's not bad faith, it must at least be serious social ineptitude.
 * As for deletion, this is not the right place to propose deletion, that's WP:AFD. You're welcome to try that, but I'd be surprised if there was a consensus to delete this article.  ApLundell (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the AFD history at the top of this talk page, this article was AFD'd and kept, twice. So probably not a good idea to AFD it again. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a properly sourced article that has been written about by academics and other quality RS. I think the term does irk some people, who probably feel that it is used to unfairly challenge even good-faith questioning, but such abuses aside, it does seem it is a well-documented (and even studied) action. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)