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.
Keep - I remember the term clear back from my pre-Internet BBS days in the late 1980s. The fact it is still in use is pretty notable itself. :-) --Willscrlt15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge with Slashdot? A simple Google search of "Anonymous Coward" -slashdot returns about 984,000 hits. This is a term deeply rooted in Internet history, and is certainly not exclusive to Slashdot. If the article were less developed, perhaps it would be better in Wiktionary, but as-is, it seems to stand on its own. For what it's worth, you're right. I couldn't find any hits that appeared to be pre-Slashdot to verify my memories, though I still have the old BBS messages archived on 5.25" floppies somewhere. Now if only I still had a 5.25" drive! :-D --Willscrlt16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the verifiability policy. The significance of the term "Anonymous Coward" outside the context of Slashdot cannot be verified by the standards of that policy. Other sites use the term, but in apparent reference to Slashdot. This article does not stand on its own. It is a jumble of three subjects: anonymous posts on Slashdot, a list of sites that have borrowed the term from Slashdot, and anonymous posts in general. The first two belong on Slashdot, if anywhere, the last on Anonymous post. -- Alan McBeth18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem here is that Anonymous post also has no sourcing, either, so neither article can stand alone or in tandem with each other. They're both terminology used in Internet bulletin boards and chat rooms. Do we have something that is a bit broader than Slashdot for this? Merge this and anonymous post with the appropriate article, whatever that might be. B.Wind00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I am finding while researching this, is that most of the Internet sources refer back to either the Anonymous Coward or the Anonymity article as their defacto explanation of the term. It seems that many people consider the articles to be excellent references on their own. I realize that contradicts the goals of Wikipedia to only provide citable articles, but what happens when Wikipedia is the primary citation for an Internet term like this? I realize it is not a good reason alone to keep the article, but there will be many broken or potentially confusing inbound links to Wikipedia if either article is deleted, redirected, and/or merged. If merged, the redirect should point as closely as possible to the comparable part of the larger article. Many disussion board software appear to use the "Anonymous Coward" term, so it is definitely not unique to Slashdot. --Willscrlt01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While "anonymous post" is indeed unreferenced, it is a *technical term* (unlike "A.Coward") and chances are good IMO that it may be sourced, at the very least in those BB regulations which expressly ban these. `'mikkanarxi01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable term. If Wikipedia wants to be a reference, it has to accept that, due to its ability to change rapidly, there are some phenomena that it will be the primary reference for. It is not credible that external references will exist for any and every item of note which crops up, particularly on the internet. -- eyrieowl December 3, 2006
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.