Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sea lioning


 * 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. The first keep arguments are mite perfunctory (when discussing the notability of a term, sources discussing the concept are ideal) but later sources are mostly uncontested. If there is still desire for a merger to the comic, a dedicated merger discussion is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sea lioning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Fails on WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep To quote WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term" Every source currently in the article is about the term, exactly as required.  This passes WP:NEO.  -- Jayron 32 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, suitable level of independent sourcing is provided. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequately sourced, passes WP:NEO as argued above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes NEO as explained by Jayron32.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Merge to Wondermark - Apparently I'm not seeing what other people are seeing. Where is the in-depth treatment of this concept beyond just referencing that comic (which is coverage of a particular comic strip such that it should be included in an article about the comic). The sources cited are mostly personal blogs/SPS and/or brief mentions. I'm searching myself, and it's a challenging search mainly because people use the term without describing it beyond a definition (if that) based on the comic. To pass WP:NEO I would want to see more reliable sources [at least in significant part] about the term, going into more detail than just reiterating what the comic itself said. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly passes WP:NEO. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - I see many "clearly"s. Since I don't see additional sources linked here, and the sources in the article certainly do not show that it clearly passes, what is this based on? Could you link to some of the most convincing sources? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another I don't think has come up before - http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a13403/online-harassment-terms-fight-back/ And https://io9.gizmodo.com/10-comics-that-shut-down-terrible-internet-arguments-1677109868 -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are a little better than what's there, but they're still each a couple sentences defining the term. Seems right for Wiktionary, but when no reliable source has more than a couple sentences about it -- and most of them have the same couple sentences or just put it in the context of the comic -- why wouldn't WP:NOPAGE come into play? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOTDICT, articles on words need to be encylopaedic - having more than a definition too. That and WP:NOPAGE, doesn't seem like this can be expanded much Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Wondermark. Yes, it passes WP:NEO. However the article must have encylopaedic information - That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. - WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Currently it doesn't meet that, having only the definition and etymology. I was looking for the possibility of expansion, and the extra information I can find is: that it was derived in relation to gamergate and that it has been "embraced" by the subreddit KotakuinAction sourced to this unpublished "computer science" paper - (not a super RS for this I think). IMHO the possibility of expansion is a little grim based on the sources I've found so far; so it should be merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep And restore Jimbo's comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the statement next to Jimbo's comment that was in the previous version - The term has been criticized, in part due to the comic featuring the apparent defence of bigotry and the comparison of invading someone's home to online posting. - would fit lot more if it were merged into the article on the comic; and it it is unsourced. Jimbo's comment is also about the comic really rather than the term. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I was confused who was supposed to be the bad guy in the comic per what I quoted


 * Merge to Wondermark, leaving a redirect. I think the references demonstrate that it's a notable concept by now (and boy is it a handy shorthand :), but it doesn't seem to be one that can sustain something of article size. - And definitely lose the Jimbo tweet. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Upgrade to Keep as a separate article based on sources shown below and added to article in the meantime. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep useful concept, notable in internet culture.--Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh Delete with prejudice unless this is adopted by multiple dictionaries. The sources certainly do not reflect anything but memes a few years out of date. 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect and merge – this is currently a dictionary definition, and should be listed on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Of course, our article on Wondermark can say a line or two about how it coined this work... and then most of this article would be redundant. (Edit: In fact, I did just that. You can't tell me this edit constitutes undue weight) No reason to keep this. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NEO.  Mini  apolis  00:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to sea lioning subsection of Wondermark. I agree that the concept is significant (not to mention incredibly useful) but can't find anything much in sources to add to the definition, so this works better as a subsection than a stand-alone article. Mortee (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and Note, new and improved sources provided to replace those in question. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as others have said, passes WP:NEO.--Jorm (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't believe the argument that this topic passes WP:NEO resolves the main issue of this article: that it is overly short and can easily be described in full in the Wondermark article, as well as Wiktionary. I would like to know what think of this, as they voted "keep" purely on the fact that this term meets NEO. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When responding to an AfD, I typically only address the reason for deletion that the person posting for the AfD gives. As per your new reason for deletion, in my opinion the concept of sealioning has become part of our popular culture, and should have a standalone article outside of the Wondermark page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably should've been clearer; the article meets the WP:GNG. Please don't badger editors who (in good faith) disagree with you, and an AfD discussion is not a !vote count.  Mini  apolis  19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize, that was not my intent. I just hoped to get some more detailed discussion than simply "does not meet NEO." "Actually it does meet NEO." But thank you both very much for responding to my request; I could not wish for more ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 21:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as a stand-alone article; passes WP:NEO. See for example: "How to Combat Fake News Online? Bring Reddit (and Other Online Forums) Into the Classroom". Results from Google books: . Appears to be a notable internet trolling tactic. Snippet:
 * ... discussed in depth in later chapter...", in Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online
 * When a neologism makes it into scholarly books, I feel it's not too soon to to have a Wiki article on the term. A merge to Wondermark would not be appropriate at this stage, since the term exists separate from the comic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per K.e.coffman who has provided sources demonstrating that the topic is substantive (not WP:NEO) and notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep with the improvements made by User:K.e.coffman, as noted by User:C. W. Gilmore. Chetsford (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect Several references, so it's clearly a notable and definable concept but just one of many small strategies for Internet trolling. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep All sources check out and it is common phenomenon in internet discussions --Blackbird256 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (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.