Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous Coward


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Coward


non notable terms. Kovfa 12:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Slashdot, possibly smerge to Slashdot, Scoop (software) and Plastic.com already mentioned there. Demiurge 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable term--Expq 13:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable term on numerous websites, merging to one article (Slashdot) would be stupid. --- RockMFR 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I remember the term clear back from my pre-Internet BBS days in the late 1980s. The fact it is still in use is pretty notable itself. :-) --Willscrlt 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Slashdot. Usage variations can link to Slashdot.  Any pre-Slashdot usage is probably not verifiable.  -- Alan McBeth 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why merge with Slashdot? A simple Google search of "Anonymous Coward" -slashdot returns about 984,000 hits. This is a term deeply rooted in Internet history, and is certainly not exclusive to Slashdot. If the article were less developed, perhaps it would be better in Wiktionary, but as-is, it seems to stand on its own. For what it's worth, you're right. I couldn't find any hits that appeared to be pre-Slashdot to verify my memories, though I still have the old BBS messages archived on 5.25" floppies somewhere. Now if only I still had a 5.25" drive! :-D --Willscrlt 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of the verifiability policy. The significance of the term "Anonymous Coward" outside the context of Slashdot cannot be verified by the standards of that policy.  Other sites use the term, but in apparent reference to Slashdot.  This article does not stand on its own.  It is a jumble of three subjects: anonymous posts on Slashdot, a list of sites that have borrowed the term from Slashdot, and anonymous posts in general.  The first two belong on Slashdot, if anywhere, the last on Anonymous post.  -- Alan McBeth 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * merge the verifiable content (basing onWP:RS) into "Anonymous post". Google hits are not valid argument here. You can get zillions of hits for various common phrases big bucks, clueless moron, I want to get laid... `'mikkanarxi 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem here is that Anonymous post also has no sourcing, either, so neither article can stand alone or in tandem with each other. They're both terminology used in Internet bulletin boards and chat rooms. Do we have something that is a bit broader than Slashdot for this? Merge this and anonymous post with the appropriate article, whatever that might be. B.Wind 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem that I am finding while researching this, is that most of the Internet sources refer back to either the Anonymous Coward or the Anonymity article as their defacto explanation of the term. It seems that many people consider the articles to be excellent references on their own. I realize that contradicts the goals of Wikipedia to only provide citable articles, but what happens when Wikipedia is the primary citation for an Internet term like this? I realize it is not a good reason alone to keep the article, but there will be many broken or potentially confusing inbound links to Wikipedia if either article is deleted, redirected, and/or merged. If merged, the redirect should point as closely as possible to the comparable part of the larger article. Many disussion board software appear to use the "Anonymous Coward" term, so it is definitely not unique to Slashdot. --Willscrlt 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While "anonymous post" is indeed unreferenced, it is a *technical term* (unlike "A.Coward") and chances are good IMO that it may be sourced, at the very least in those BB regulations which expressly ban these. `'mikkanarxi 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another possible target for both is Screen name (computing) (although I've just tagged it as unref'd as well). It looks like we have quite a black hole here :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable with its own reuptation. --Dennisthe2 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable, and stand on it own, as made in points above --Pichu0102 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable term. If Wikipedia wants to be a reference, it has to accept that, due to its ability to change rapidly, there are some phenomena that it will be the primary reference for.  It is not credible that external references will exist for any and every item of note which crops up, particularly on the internet. -- eyrieowl December 3, 2006
 * Keep Quite notable on many sites. MrMacMan 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.