Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitposting


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Shitposting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to satisfy WP:Web and WP:NRV. The term Shitposting does not become notable by inheriting the notability of people recently associated with the term, like Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. It is an interchangeable verb for any type of negative content published on the web, and it isn't notable enough to have its own wikipedia page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to WikiDictionary-- I find only passing mentions in Google books; insufficient for a stand-alone article on this phenomenon. This looks like a "meme of the week" similar to AfD of "Delete your account", which was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did your WP:BEFORE search only include Google Books? -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY however this is not even a legitimate term to be defined. Meatsgains (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't mention searching for any references about this term. Did you?  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because the coverage in independent reliable sources are sufficient to show notability and sufficient to expand this little stub into a verifiable full article. If you had asked me last year, I would of hesitated on the notability of this term.  Yes, there was some coverage, but it seemed like an "in-joke" exclusive to the 4chan/SomethingAwful-world, with no noticable effect on general society at large.   I would of seen the 'Simpson Shitposting', 'Sienfield Shitposting' and related groups as interesting, but still not yet enough for notability.  Then the independent reliable source news coverage started rolling in this month about the use of shitposting in a political context.  We now have major media writers and editors debating just how to properly write about shitposting, even writing full length articles about the phenomenon.   Shitposting is not just about political use, but it is the coverage of the political use that pushes it over the notability threshold.   --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Ir's a dictionary word. Commonly used on every discussion board.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your !vote based on any searches for references, or based on your personal view of what is on discussion boards? --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's based on the fact that it shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia because it's not encyclopedic. We already have Internet troll.  Creating articles in thinly veiled attempts to carry on attacks of people by expanding search coverage is deplorable.  --DHeyward (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DHeyward: I'll thank you kindly to immediately strike-out your personal attack. Any further discussion of your breach of AGF can take place on my talk page, your talk page, or ANI.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not even remotely close to a personal attack. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This term appears to meet WP:GNG, as a thing that is being discussed and analyzed. The article is currently a stub, but there are enough sources to expand it into a full article that is distinct from "Internet Troll".  I agree with 1Wiki8 that this was not the case until recently.  Before recently, this term should be relegated purely to Wiktionary or similar, but now, there is actual discussion on the topic in general.  Fieari (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would safely venture to say that the user means the sources already on the article, some of which are also highlighted in this discussion.  Did you have other sources you wish to discuss?  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTDICTIONARY. This is, strictly speaking, a dictionary definition that can not reasonably be expanded into an encyclopedic article. Also note my '"Timbo's Rule 14" — "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the 2 strongest refs that show this topic passes NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEO are:
 * Papa, what’s a shitpost? by John Biggs in TechCrunch
 * Shitposting: What is the bizarre online behaviour that could win Donald Trump the election? by Andrew Griffin in The Independent
 * Significant coverage of the term, wouldn't you agree? --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I do not see it as WP:SIGCOV; mostly "24-hr news cycle echo chamber" type of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's the main debate here.  The keep votes here are based on existing sources that we all feel significantly discuss the topic and thus passes the WP:NEO bar.  But so far you're the only one to even start to discuss the sources from a delete perspective.   Of course you are wrong, but it's good you are finally debating what really matters in this AFD.  Cheers!  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and be speedy about it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, correct that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not even a true word for a dictionary; slang, at best. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete. This isn't urban dictionary. Pyrusca (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's trying to abuse Wikipedia for political reasons. Kill it with fire. I might almost recommend sanctions against the article's creator. 2601:602:9802:99B2:3800:7AD6:CEA8:1343 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a good place to recommend those sanctions: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Go!  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a general use beyond the immediate political topic, and the article documents it. The use of multiple references is indeed often a promotional technique, but it is the only way to demonstrate that something is actually in common use.  I see no reason to think the article was created in bad faith,and I consider suggestions of this to be altogether outside the line of acceptable discourse,even for AfD.   DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – An option is to merge to Talking shit, or as a secondary choice, Trash-talk. North America1000 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEOLOGISM with political overtones.  Oldest source I saw was April 2016.  The vulgarity is not by itself a reason to delete or delay, but fits in with WP:V's requirement that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".  Further, it is highly inappropriate that Wikipedia should pick one of the extant definitions and become a leading source for defining this concept.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO concerns already addressed above, with sources that significantly discuss the topic.  As for the 'Further' section above:  it seems like you are making an argument that the article needs to be updated with an Origin section detailing how the article topic came about, and some type of 'popular culture' section detailing the article topic in relation to stuff like Simpson Shitposting and Sienfield Shitposting, etc.  Of course, I agree with you that this little stub article needs to be expanded.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms...are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." WP:NEO mentions "books" thrice, but there are no books on a WP:BEFORE D1 for Google Books that talk "about" the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the lede of the article...where the editor's have not used Wikipedia's voice to define the term, but they have picked a definition to quote. This article is self-referential humor.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Now it's in the Guardian. Actually twice, one of which was months ago. It's in Wired In German. In terms of the current political usage, there's also context that goes beyond a simple definition. That's what makes it desirable to have an encyclopedia article. It would be shortsighted, and, frankly, elitist to delete this article because of "facepalm." We describe the world as it is, not how we'd like it to be so that we don't facepalm. As far as the charges of POV above, I don't think that's what's going on here. This can be described in a neutral way. As far as the comment that this isn't a "real" word, there are reliable sources that disagree. agt x  15:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources are suggested to include significant coverage of the article topic, per WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk72 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, in the Guardian one, it's in the headline and is the entire topic of the article. What it looks like here is that this is a term that's been in use for some time that now has more to say about it than a simple dictionary definition.  agt x  15:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Were the right Guardian articles linked; because the first appears to be about a technology millionaire's support for a political candidate; the second about a political staffer's resignation. Neither contain any information about "shitposting" as a topic itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the tone of this comment to be sarcastic and uncivil. I've said all I need to above. agt x  00:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm was intended. These sources don't provide significant coverage of the article topic as required to meet WP:GNG. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is not about the term, it's about the activities of an individual engaged in this practice:
 * Palmer Luckey, the creator of Facebook’s Oculus Rift virtual reality headset, is the secret backer of a pro-Donald Trump organisation aiming to turn the tide of the US election through “meme magic” and “shitposting”.
 * This does not amount to WP:SIGCOV on the topic of shitposting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that argument is a touch pedantic. It's like saying an article about the 2016 Olympics doesn't represented significant coverage of the topic of the 2016 Olympics because all it talks about is people playing soccer and throwing javelins. This guy is shitposting, and he's doing it in a way that requires reliable sources to cover shitposting specifically. That combined with the articles cited above (from the Independent and TechCruch) are enough. agt x  02:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, while noting that this "practice" is not defined in the article. All usages of the word appear in quote marks.  These usages are primary material, which is excluded from WP:GNG.  These usages might be considered as evidence of a small amount of attention to the topic by citing the WP:N nutshell; but this is not the argument used.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I guess one could say that it's a candidate for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia - however I do think that there's enough to write about its causes, effects, how to stop or filter it etc. as well as what it actually is (what's its relation to spam and trolling etc.). It's a major phenomenon on the Internet. --Fixuture (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTURBANDICT. There needs to be strong sources which analyse the term itself. I see a lot of examples of shitposting (in the newspaper coverage), but hardly any secondary work about the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you consider the articles in The Independent (Shitposting: What is the bizarre online behaviour that could win Donald Trump the election?) and TechCrunch (Papa, what’s a shitpost?) to be examples of that secondary work about the subject? --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't apply in this case because reliable sources have used the term, and its use is already popular on web forums, so its inclusion here isn't part of a campaign to increase its usage. WP:NOTDIC doesn't apply because the sources provided do provide encyclopedic coverage of the term beyond just the definition. The Independent discusses the demographics of shitposting,, and the Engineering and Technology article focuses on the political implications of shitposting. . Other sources, like the piece from The Guardian above cover the real-world impacts of shitposting and go far beyond just mere dictionary definitions. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, for the coverage before this got more prominence in the US election, The Daily Dot wrote an August 2016 article about the fate of a FB page devoted to Simpsons shitposting,, and The New York Observer devoted a column to articles by reputable companies that are essentially "shit posts". .  Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:22, 10 October 2016 (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.