Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosuicide


 * 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   delete. v/r - TP 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Infosuicide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a well known or independently WP:RS notable neologism. Prod was removed with only a replacement of not Wikipedia reliable externals. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, there are 3 external refs on there, all of which meet WP:RS, although one of them would be regarded as WP:SPS in this context (which is no reason to remove it, as you ought to well know). In particular, Eric Meyer's blog is considered as WP:RS for matters relating to web development, which this would fall under.


 * The big question - neo or notable? A week ago I'd have said no. People did it, the term was in use (for something like twenty years, back into the Usenet era), but no WP:RS were discussing it to the WP:N level. This week, after Mark Pilgrim did it, then yes, we do have WP:RS coverage of this act, and describing it under this term. So that's a keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem is that, according to WP:NEO, a term needs secondary reliable sources discussing its use, not showing evidence that it is used. Only two of the sources use the term, and I'm happy to accept that both are reliable - but unfortunately all they do is use it. The Daily Dot is close, but a little too limited to base an article on, and Eric Meyers only uses the term in passing. If there are some good sources discussing the term itself that would be great, though. - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete From WP:NEO: "Finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." I have yet to see any WP:RS talking about the term to the WP:N level. Maybe, maybe not. See discussion below Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot article,, is obviously inspired by Mark Pilgrim, but its scope is that of Infosuicide overall, not just this one case: it uses the term specifically in the title, it discusses other cases, it discusses the broader aspect, rather than just Pilgrim's behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that the article says "The phenomenon even has a name: infosuicide" with "infosuicide" being a link to this page. I wonder if the author knew the term before looking it up on Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think that Wikipedia should create events, merely to collect and organize information. The term is not official definition and it's based on pop cultural idea. The word "suicide" is not proper for reverting to private life after closing personal pages, blogs and etc. There are many organizations and subcultures aimed at preventing suicides, other who still debate on the issue with euthanasia and other groups with issues regarding mental and physical problems. Eventually when there is a term that define the act to close an account it should be listed as such. For this is not a definition and Wikipedia should not be used to spread and make popular an abusive terminology for living people, who wish to receive some privacy. So delete and if there is a term that describe the action - list the right one. Afterall - should closing one account out of two means "partial-infosuicide"? Perfectford (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is an "official definition"? We don't observe such things, we follow WP:RS instead.
 * What is "pop culture" about this, and when did Wikipedia (Oh happy day!) start to exclude such "pop culture" material? Just take a look at where the bulk of wiki articles are!
 * You have a point that we should not trivialise suicide - yet it's not a point that has any relevance here. We don't invent this stuff, we just record it. We record it when someone else has used a term, even if we don't like the way they've done it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it may sounded like it's personaly and differs from efforts to be neutral point of view, however I've tried to add more to the debate, not simply concur the above. Following |(words to watch), which states that one should make sure the resulting terms (when creating neologisms) are not misleading or offensive. Indeed "infosuicide" is misleading (it's not permanent). The "behavior" of the source that was mentioned above - it quotes Wikipedia, which makes event and coins the term "officialy" by having a Wikipedia article for it before it's used by a larger society. "Pop culture" stands for current cultural mainstream (really don't want to point obvious things), not ancient or past culture, so you can clearly make the difference between neologism and anarchism. And the reference with the culture was not to mislead one by coining new frase, based on what not so many use not so frequently. So based on WP:NEO "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible", avoiding misleading. The term needs more sources, since now it's not wide spread (but as you stated - because of ther person it may go other way). Intil that time comes, people will refer to Wikipedia and insted to simply record the events, Wikipedia will create an event. PF (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that Mark Pilgrim made the same move (closing all accounts) in October 2004 and many blogs posted his last message, that he's looking for new hobby. So respectfully - everyone can have the freedom to open online account, close it and reopens when he wish, avoiding the use of definition which refers to something (life) terminal. PF (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable observation. Back it up with references and there could even be scope for a WP:NPOV section saying that Infosuicide is trivial and self-indulgent, because, unlike suicide, it's not permanent and seems to be often reversed afterwards. The "What has Mark Pilgrim had for breakfast?" meme that's circulating right now could even end up as part of this. This is one of those observations that might change the slant of an article, but I don't see it as reason to not have an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the five sources, only two use the term "infosuicide". Those sources use the term but don't discuss its use as required by WP:NEO. I did some searching but didn't turn up any other reliable sources. Lagrange613 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2011 (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.