Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogpiling (Internet)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dogpiling (Internet)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:DICDEF. The mishmash collection of sources are about online harrassment in general, and at best mentions dogpiling in passing, failing WP:PASSING. Above all, it is not clear how dogpiling on the Internet is a distinct concept from when dogpiling occurs as a part of harrassment in a more enclosed group; a school setting, a workplace etc. (other than in scale, of course). Surely, dogpiling has existed in all social settings throughout history where you have a leader and others who latch on (examples from Greek Antiquity: ostracism, demagogue etc.).

The page even has an image, a staged picture showing a single derogatory message. A single message doesn't constitute dogpiling, and it only serves to highlight how confused this entry is. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: PEN America, Social Media & Society , NPR affiliate KQED , and Media Defence have all discussed this concept, among others.  Sure, the term is often folded in with other forms of abuse in those pieces, and SAGE journals are often questionable, but that's just what I found in five minutes of Googling.  The article definitely needs work but the concept has attention from secondary sources, and is sufficiently distinct from similar phenomena offline to be worth an article of its own. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think this is a distinct phenomenon and there are enough potential sources that exist, even if they are not (yet) referenced in the article. I'll try and make a few improvements to the article when I have time, as I agree it's not in particularly good condition. I particularly enjoy the hilariously inappropriate image which fails to depict the one significant characteristic aspect of dogpiling [i.e. that multiple actors should be involved]. Akakievich (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to the closing admin: I contend that WeirdNAnnoyed's sources are nowhere near enough to save this article, seeing as 1, 2 and 4 are passing mentions. In the latter, dogpiling is not even discussed in a full sentence, only a fragment of a sentence. Ref 3 is a personal account which does not have the gravitas in the encyclopedic context to support dogpiling as an encyclopedic subject. I also contend that Akakievich does not address the concerns voiced in the nomination text, i.e. that dictionary definitions are disallowed on Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: I concur that the present article content is a dictionary definition of Cyberbullying performed by a group. While I found several additional academic sources by searching for Networked harassment, it already exists as a redirect to a section about online shaming. Online shaming has its own article, the scope of which (see Description) duplicates the scope of Dogpiling (Internet), making it a Content fork. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not saying the terms 'online shaming' and 'dogpiling' are necessarily equivalent. I'm saying that Examples of online abuse include flaming, doxing (online release of personal information without consent), impersonation, and public shaming. (Dogpiling (Internet)) and Online shaming is a form of public shaming in which internet users are harassed, mocked, or bullied by other internet users online. (Online shaming) make scopes of these two article nearly indistinguishable.
 * As an alternative to deletion, I support merge to either Online harassment or Online shaming. I see the former target preferable regardless of its size as it already discusses Hate raids and Online shaming (suggesting it may be possible to integrate the content without increasing article size), as well as considering the proposal on the article's talk page: Talk:Cyberbullying. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles appear to satisfy WP:GNG on their own: (half a page)  (~2 paragraphs and two quotes)  (a bit over a paragraph)  (only uses the term briefly but discusses the concept in decent detail). The last source emphasises that dogpiling is distinct from cyberbullying as its motives are often different (i.e. to pursue a sense of justice).


 * As a second option, I would suggest merging to online harassment, or even online shaming. But the former article is far WP:TOOBIG for a merge anyway, at 10505 words. It should arguably be split into a "by country" article and a "general" article... But that aside, the best that could be done with the dogpiling article is improving and adding it in summary style there, mainly to rescue the existing citations of which some are good to use. Merging to online shaming is a bit questionable to me as it's not really clear to me what the difference is between online shaming and online harassment, and I don't think the goal of dogpiling is always shaming. Perhaps those articles could be merged, but that looks like a major undertaking. Darcyisvery cute (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The article offers historical context, particularly in relation to significant events like the Gamergate campaign, underscoring its relevance in contemporary discussions about internet safety and digital citizenship. Retaining and improving this article aligns with Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive and neutral information, thereby aiding awareness, research, etc.--Loewstisch (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure. I've been dogpiled here, so I know it exists, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed in sufficient secondary and independent reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2023 (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.