Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberbullying


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep Wikibofh 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Cyberbullying
Hmmm...where to start. (First editor) is a non-notable educator (at a non-notable institution) with co-authorship of 4 papers to his name. (Second editor) appears to have a little more notability than his colleague. The whole issue smacks of dicdef, original research and postmodern jibberjabber that professional professors throw around when their tenure is threatened. Delete or come up with some convincing prose that demonstrates clearly the how and why of bullying via the internet and why it is a bigger deal than actual physical violence. Eddie.willers 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * {Rejoinder} Despite the fact that Mr. Willers provided absolutely no constructive feedback regarding this project, I feel that he has contributed immeasurably, insofar as his comments represent a good example of one form of cyberbullying – that is, groundless, unqualified, and clearly inept criticism of another’s work. I will not respond to the personal attack, except for thanking him for visiting our site.  I will, however, continue to contribute to the development of Wikipedia and the cyberbullying article specifically as this is an area of interest. Non-notable educator 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Response to Non-Notable Educator. Sir, I am saddened by your apparent inability to maintain a clear focus on the purpose of this forum. An AFD Nomination is not required to provide 'constructive feedback', as the process calls for contributory votes from other users. Although, as you assert, and to which I shall admit, my criticism is somewhat 'groundless, unqualified, and clearly inept', at no point does my nomination veer in to the realms of personal attack (aka 'cyberbullying') and to suggest that it does is disingenuous, to say the least. I maintain that you have signally failed in your article to clearly set forth a difference between actual physical intimidation in the real world and its electronic percieved equivalent.
 * Keep/Expand/Cleanup Cyber bullying (as two words) has received mainstream media attention internationally as a concept w/r/t kids in chat rooms, and using SMS and IM. Apparently it's more prevalent than in-person bullying due to anonymity the web provides. Here are a few media mentions: Louisiana TV station, CBS News, CBC backgrounder, Wired Safety article Maybe redirect to Cyber bullying since that's how it's usually written? Jessamyn 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I have changed this to a web stub and provided references. User Jessamyn has listed others with potential. This is a significant issue regarding technology use by children and young people. Should be renamed as Cyber bullying.Capitalistroadster 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jessamyn. The article has a lot of potential. Saberwyn 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup as per above. -- Kjkolb 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Ryan Norton T 05:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep echoing above. Dottore So 07:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep These newstories made CNN and ABC, at least, not to mention my local paper. Xoloz 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Cyber bullying Alf melmac 12:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep newsmaking --JAranda &#124; yeah 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Private Butcher 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If that link is an explanation of your keep vote, it is not transparent to me. Jkelly 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd suggest that it might be better titled Cyber bullying, with a preserved redirect.  Jkelly 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP!!!! I CREATED THIS ARTICLE, I DID NOT MAKE UP THIS SUBJECT, THE PORTMANTEAU IS MENTIONED ON MANY WEBSITES AND IT ISN'T EVEN THAT BIG OF A "HOG" ON THE WIKIPEDIA DATABASE ANYWAY.
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.