Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double posting (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Merge to Internet forum. I have moved the article to Internet forum/Double posting for now so the merge can be completed without leaving an article that should be deleted. Can someone please complete the merge asap and I will delete the sub page. If it is not merged within one week it will be deleted anyway. Viridae Talk 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved it back and performed a merge and redirect instead. Merge and delete loses author attribution, which is a violation of the GFDL. Bryan Derksen 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Double posting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This violates Attribution (the new policy which has replaced WP:V and WP:OR), as there don't appear to be any reliable sources on this. Without reliable sources, it never should have survived the first AfD debate. Xyzzyplugh 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it only makes sense that it would take a double nomination to delete this :) Ron Ritzman 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't find reliable sources via Google, not to mention this article is basically a mishmash of original research and compilations of forum rules. I'll admit it's very difficult to search this without just getting assorted forum threads/rules, so if anyone else can find sources, I'd reconsider. --Wafulz 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely not an encyclopedic topic. Not all subjects are inherently notable, and the simple act of accidentally posting twice in a row is definitely not.  --Haemo 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. At most, some of the information in this article can be merged into Forum spam. --Nevhood 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or if some mention of it is found, merge it into an article about forum etiquette or something. --Delirium 03:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable forum expression, no reliable sources (internet forums and Wikipedia itself are not reliable sources). Krimpet 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At least merge: I don't really care if the article itself gets deleted, but I would like for the information to be merged (and not simply deleted with a redirect without moving the information) somewhere. Granted, it is a damn hard topic to get reliable sources for, due to the sheer casualness of the subject, but I doubt anyone would seriously want to delete hide and seek just because it doesn't have any "reliable sources". Sometimes important culteral things just have unwritten rules, and we need to realize this. Please take this article with a grain of salt.--SeizureDog 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing a search in children's books on amazon.com shows over 2000 hits for "hide and seek", including a number of books on games for children, there are plenty of sources on hide and seek if someone wants to bother finding them. --Xyzzyplugh 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there's probably something published out there thats talk about double posting as well. My point is that the potentional for reliable sources isn't being taken into account. The whole "there aren't reliable sources right now so we should delete it" stance doesn't really seem fair. Attribution aims to force articles of dubious nature to be deleted unless they can prove themselves otherwise. It shouldn't be applied to in a "get Towel some reliable sources in a week or it's deleted" manner.--SeizureDog 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I think we should throw out the regular rules for this and invoke common sense. "Double post" is an extremely common forum phrase; I had the same problem as Wafulz, though, in that it's so prevalent I can't easily find anything that isn't a forum itself.  It's like doing a search for "roflmao" .  --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is fallacious. LOL (Internet slang) shows by example exactly how "lol", "rotfl", and others can be sourced.  Uncle G 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't comparing it to roflmao specifically. I just came up with something I thought would be very common in a search to help give perspective - don't take the "roflmao" comparison literally. In fact, I'll strike through it to show you're not supposed to draw a direct comparison. I was pointing out that "double posting" is difficult to pin down sources because it is so widespread in a search. But you understand my meaning - do a search for it and you have to wade through pages and pages of forums while attempting to hunt something down. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said already, your argument is fallacious. That you erroneously think that a Google Web search of the article title is the only way to find sources is one root of the fallacy.  Once again, look at the example of LOL (Internet slang).  You have examples of what kinds of sources will discuss double posting, if such sources exist.  If you want to make an argument for keeping this content that will hold water, find such sources and cite them.  You have yet to do so. Uncle G 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine then. Since I'm not personally interested in the topic and have little desire to spend my time researching it, delete it. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: with Internet forum. The forum hits show its notabilty as a concept, accepted among the wide array of forum users. The article can be trimmed down but the gist of it isn't just trash to be thrown away because of strict adherence to policy.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable content should be thrown away. This is not optional, and arguing that we should discard fundamental content policy will not wash.  Your only argument is to show that the content is verifiable.  You have yet to do so. Uncle G 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a major difference between unverifiable information and unverified information. --SeizureDog 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. And A mcmurray's argument is, as xe says, based upon the premise that this is the former, not the latter.  Xyr argument is, like yours, that the content should be merged even though it contravenes our verifiability policy.  Uncle G 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with an article about Internet forums... see Internet forum, or another internet related article. There aren't many sources on "Double posting", except for forum rules and threads, but this is a term that exists in nearly any online forum community. Kopf1988 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If there is a merger, the only verified material we could really merge is "double-posting is when a user makes two consecutive posts," which is kind of a useless addition. If anything, bring it up on the talk page of Internet forum and try to source material there, and then make additions to the article. --Wafulz 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically. But that doesn't mean the info doesn't belong somewhere. I don't care if it doesn't get its own article. Policies aren't set in stone anyway, btw. Additionally, the forums would essentially be primary sources in this instance, which are allowable if they are used only to verify the fact that the term exists per WP:A. Which means the article is either kept as a stub or a sentence or two is thrown into the internet forum article. Wikipedia policy can be bent a bit if it helps the wiki or an article or whatever. Anyway merge essentially means delete but.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's any worse that most of the other articles in Category:Internet forum terminology which makes the suggestions here to merge it with internet forum problematic since that would imply the whole category should be merged there, making that page too long so people would then want to spin that out into separate articles again. I've saved a copy at wikiasite:forums:double posting in case it is deleted from here though. Angela. 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in looking at that category, there are a number of other articles which will likely need to go. And they can't all be merged into Internet forum, you are correct.  Perhaps a 1 line definition of the terms, if they don't already exist in Internet forum, could be added there.  --Xyzzyplugh 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there not a better article than internet forum to merge to? Maybe we need to just make a new something to merge everything into. Internet forum culture maybe? That's sure to get damn crufty though...--SeizureDog 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Internet forum terminology, of course verifiability would be key. But I still think my statement about the forums as primary sources holds water, provided there were enough of them to be considered verification. And sure these things can change, but there are very few articles on Wikipedia which involve active events, people etc that are static. Anyway, I don't want to discard fundamental policy but remember, the rules and guidelines are meant to be followed in spirit not to the letter.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in all that could eliminate the category and make managing the garbage that does get through much easier as these things will either be merged or deleted as it may be.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication. --Xyzzyplugh 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We need something that isn't just a def-list. I have a feeling that List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication and others could be deleted if anyone bothered to want to trans-wiki them to WikiDictionary.--SeizureDog 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 192.75.48.150 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 192.75.48.150 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) sorry, couldn't resist
 * 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.