Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concern troll

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.

Concern troll

The result of this debate was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit on the fence, but I think it falls on the "delete" side. What we have here is a neologism that has sprung up on blogs and does not seem to have made an impact on the mainstream. All of the references cited in the article that actually speak of a "concern troll" are blog posts. The major newspapers linked in the "examples" section verify the incidents, but do not describe them with the term "concern troll." I also disagree with the merge tag, as we should not include the information until we have more reliable sources (also, the behavior does not seem totally consistent with "trolling" as defined in Internet troll, the suggested target of the merge). Andrew Levine 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, maybe to the examples of Internet Trolls--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa ^{Talk to Me} 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete While the cited events have occured, I dont see anything indicating that this term is used outside of this article. wtfunkymonkey 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete. Term lacks wider provenance, and seem prety much covered by the term "troll". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until verified.-- danntm ^T _C 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested at the top of the article. I'd say a straight delete would be fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate your concern, but you'll always stink and burn. Danny Lilithborne 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A slimmed Google search turns up 10k+ hits[1], which strikes me as something that isn't a recently made-up term. EVula 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google hits for internet-specific terms are always far out of proportion to their actual use. Recently-made-up terms relating to the internet can rack up five, even six figures in their gross Google hits in a very short time. Andrew Levine 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I realize, which is why it was a weak keep. 10k just strikes me as much more than a fad word would have. This is just my personal opinion. EVula 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If some non-blog or forum references can be found and cited (such as newspapers or tech magazines), and the article rewritten to display verifiable information taken from these third-party sources, then I would support a rewrite and keep. However, in its current form, the article is nothing more than a neologistic (made up term) dictdef (definition of the term) with a list of "examples" where the contributor(s) believe that the neologism applies. If you cannot verify through the use of external, third party sources, delete. -- saberwyn 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with internet troll for now, and I think it may be worth a mention at Daily Kos. There certainly isn't enough material for a good article now, although a few pro-blogs could potentially work as (supplementary) citations of use: James Wolcott, Brendan Nyhan being the strongest, but neither one really offers a good definition either. Even a search of DK indicates usage in the single digits as recently as Spring 2006. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge into internet troll per nom. --andrewI20^Talk 06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet troll, and hopefully make less US-centric - I don't think the whole world is familiar with how US politics work. JIP | Talk 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet troll as above. --tgheretford (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all Merges: Even merged information needs to be reliably sourced. Andrew Levine 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "concern troll" is much more like an astroturfer than typical disruptive Internet troll, so this material is mis-placed in that article. "Concern troll" (coined over at DailyKos, I've heard it said) is getting a lot of play from Internet sites seeing exactly this kind of behavior. I started this article, so obviously I thought it was needed. The sources for the two incidents cited, however, are dead-tree newspapers that meet Wikipedia's standard for encyclopedia quality. betsythedevine 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found what may be the term's first published usage via Google News. It's a letter to the editor whose author uses Wikipedia's definition to explain what it means. So this article has already performed a public service during its brief existence, please let's keep and improve it. betsythedevine 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete(On further examination, it is covered adequately in Internet troll). False expressions of concern and support accompanying a disastrous suggestion have a long standing in politics. Edison 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you recommending the page be moved to False expressions of concern and support, then? Because the concern expressed isn't that the practice isn't real, but rather that the term itself ("concern troll") isn't used by mainstream folks, just your everyday Internet folks. For what it's worth, I'm still neutral on this one. GassyGuy 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Betsythedevine's finding. Also, Troll (Internet) is 48KB long, and is ripe for a few spinouts as it is, so a merge may be counterproductive. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Merge or Delete Not significant enough for own article but might be okay as a merge, but there doesn't seem to be much to reliably support widespread use of this term. If reliable sources cannot be found - then delete. Bwithh 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet troll --Steve 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did find this article interesting and there seems to be a little too much subject-specific information here to be merged into Internet troll. --Marriedtofilm 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Internet troll -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge into Internet troll. The term is in frequent use, not only on Daily Kos. Auto movil 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article created for trolling purposes? Neologism. Anomo 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez-- WP:FAITH My interest in this topic originates from a talk I gave at Wikimania 2006 that discussed the misuse of Wikipedia (and similar publicly edited sites) by paid advocates who disguise their identities and motivation. I agree that "concern troll" is a new word, one with more than a million Google results this morning--but the word describes something that really happens and that people have a word to describe. I started this article because I thought that by doing so I'd make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. But I'm willing to abide what looks like the consensus here that, until the term breaks out of blog cruft and into mainstream media, it could usefully be a re-direct to one of the examples for Internet troll. betsythedevine 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per betsythedevine and merging to internet troll would add significant content to an already too long article. --Trödel 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is probably right that this does not fit well in internet troll, althoough it is, and should be, mentioned there. Septentrionalis 03:37, 2 November 2006 (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.