Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double posting

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 of the debate was Keep - notable enough term. --Cyde↔Weys 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double posting

The author contested my prod (although they didn't remove it.) See discussion on my talk page and theirs. No vote. Grandmasterka 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No vote As I'm the author, I'm bias, so I'm not going to vote. However my logic was that there are: 1,680,000 Google hits for "double post" and 605,000 Google hits for "double posting" proving that it is a widely used term and I believe it can be expanded beyond being just a definition by showing how double posting is recieved on different forums.--SeizureDog 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and move to Wiktionary. Crum375 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Redirect and merge per me Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And ghits are irrelevant for simple English words or terms - cannot differentiate between WP and wiktionary. Crum375 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, broaden scope, and expand. Beyond a simple dicdef, there's a social aspect to this. However, forums are not the only place where this type of thing happens. Double submissions happen with all manner of things: reservations, purchases, registrations, etc. So, what might be better is to rename the article to something more general and cover this broader range of conventions. Discussion as to what kind of software mechanisms are sometimes used to avoid double submissions would be a worthwhile addition to the article. – Zawersh 06:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Take it to the Jargon File -- GWO
• Weak keep, currently a dicdef. Some agreement with Zawersh. Comment on author note: I'd worry about expanding it to show how double posting is received on differnet forums. It would just end up filling the article with ephemera. - Motor (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a dictdef, there are other articles such as first post an so on. MaxSem 10:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and expand. Mrjeff 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable beyond a dicdef, room to move with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Badlydrawnjeff --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand: Notable article, but there need to be more added to keep it up to standard. --Wizardman 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge into Internet forum. Not notable by itself in an article, notable as a phenomenon that happens on forums. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I second that. I voted above to Delete or Transwiki, but I think Hobbeslover's suggestion is best. Crum375 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• I would be more comfortable if was on a page such as Internet forum terminology. --SeizureDog 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or do what Hobbeslover suggests, although I doubt this is going to be an article with very many incoming links or a likely search term, redirects are cheap. The article has no chance of going beyond a dicdef, ever. Peyna 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. --JJay 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. Silensor 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice job on a subject with interest. Silensor 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I may have to flame you now. --JJay 03:22, 5 June 2006 (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.