Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous Coward (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 for deletion, so keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Coward

edit
Anonymous Coward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This neologism does not have any reliable sources. While the first AfD for this article was in regards to its notability, I am concerned about verifiability issues. From Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paraphrasing, On blogs, etc, it is common for the people who write without signing their names, or using a temporary identity... It goes on to mention troubles associated with the nameless postings, such as "Splog" and "comment spam", and how the expression Anonymous Coward originated on slashdot as a term of disgust towards an anonymous posting. Finally, it mentions that on 2channel, the term is named 名無しさん (Mr. Nameless). Neier 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as a stub. Sure, this might be difficult to source, but not impossible. W.marsh found a source and FrozenPurpleCube found another. And the claims seem plausible from where I'm standing, I think it is likely that sources eventually will be found. Crypticfirefly 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the comment directly above. I shall also comment that a redirect to Internet_anonymity#Anonymity_and_the_Internet might be confusing, without describing why this term is related to Slashdot. Also, this [3] site has a mention of AC. Would it be a 'reliable source'?--Cogburnd02 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. This has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial references about the term. I am unpersuaded by the references offered which do little more than mention that the term has been used. Nothing to confirm that its use is extensive or significant. Simply not enough to justify keeping an article about this neologism. WjBscribe 16:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Independent dictionaries generally don't include every neologism they can dig up. Foreign dictionaries especially. So, this is a wide-spread term. Just realized I hadn't !voted above, so, registering my "Keep" here. Neier 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are real books that discuss the use of this term in Slashdot and other online communities. [4], [5]. --Itub 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I am glad that this AfD dug up some sources, I only wish I got the same result when I posted on the talk page so long ago. But it seems that AfD can be a good encourager for source finding. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be, but please don't do it. AfD nominations just to get people to add sources or improve the article in some other way are a perversion of the AfD process. --Itub 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an "AfD nominations just to get people to add sources", it is an AfD to discuss the deletion of an article that had no sources, and showed no sign of getting any. If nobody at the article is willing to find sources, AfD is the natural course. It just happens that the people at AfD will put a little more effort into saving an article than the existing editors sometimes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I only wish I got the same result when I posted on the talk page so long ago"-- You posted a call for references on the talk page on April 19th 2007 and nominated the article for deletion the next day on April 20th. (Not even waiting "a couple days.") I typically would wait at least a few weeks after requesting references before giving up and and proposing the article for deletion. At least in the case of an article such as this, where there do seem to be people interested in editing it. Crypticfirefly 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not much more to say about "Anonymous Coward" other than slashdot.org lets you publish criticisms of the latest technologies under the generic nickname "Anonymous Coward" as an epithet Slashdot assigns to contributors unwilling to reveal their names. After a detailed search, I have found it impossible to source more information on the topic, even for such a widespread term, as there is not much more to say about the topic. You also run into the problem of WP:RS using 'anonymous coward' as a generic phrase much more often than using Anonymous Coward as an online identification. There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anonymous_Coward_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137570066"