Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalization of Internet

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. Sandstein 16:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Internet[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE. We don't need an entire article covering this. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Related discussion: Talk:Internet § Capitalization of the word Internet. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 11:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Internet#Terminology. Some useful info, but we don't need a whole page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As can be seen by the length of the reference list, this is a frequent subject of debate. Pages are not a scarce resource. Alvestrand (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of citations in the article are user-generated content (i.e. not reliable sources) and come from 2009–15, not to mention that most of the sources are just regurgitations of style manual changelogs. Pages aren't a scarce resource, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that we should have a page about every single linguistic disagreement. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective merge into Internet#Terminology per AleatoryPonderings - even though there are plenty of sources that give their own opinions about the matter, that doesn't mean that there's any real world significance. Otherwise we'd be having articles about the capitalisation of every word under the Sun (or should that be sun?). It's also worth noting that most of the sources on the article are self-published/user-generated content/opinion pieces, or regurgitations of style guide changelogs - not reliable or appropriate sources. And looking at the access date for many of the sources, the content may need updating - everything seems to be from either the late 1990s or from 2009–15. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 06:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been, and continues to be, an ongoing topic of discussion, particularly within technical communities across the Internet. Because of that ongoing debate, I think a page specifically outlining the situation, is useful to have within Wikipedia. - Dyork (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dyork, do you not think we can just summarise the notable parts of that discussion on the internet page? I don't think there's that much to really cover, once you strip away all the non-reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud:, I'm slowly starting to come closer to that position with the comments from yourself and other editors. Not sure I'm quite ready to change my vote, but getting there. - Dyork (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting article about a notable topic with sufficient refs. I don't see any WP:V problems or large amounts that should obviously be cut, but if there are any, that should be handled through normal editing. The Internet article is already long, and this being tangential to that topic, merging might also cause WP:UNDUE issues there. Station1 (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some missing citations and claims that would need more citations, not to mention that again, a significant wad of the references are primary sources, regurgitations of style manual changelogs which just happen to include the changes to capitalisation of the word internet, or style guides themselves. And suggesting to keep an excessive article about a purely superficial and niche subject that has no public importance because the article it would be merged into is too long is a bit flawed - if internet is too long, then we should reduce the amount of regurgitated content from sections that have excessive content already conveyed in other articles: ({slink|Internet|History|Governance|World Wide Web|Social impact}} (several would benefit from some cleanup) anyways. And internet isn't overly long anyways; have a look at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States for a blooming long article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article averages 100 views per day. It's a legitimate topic, of interest to readers. Station1 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but we can cover all of the notable sourced stuff in the internet page which gets 5000 views a day. The internet is a popular topic, we could probably take any given section of the article and move it to its own article and that article would get 100/whatever views a day too. It doesn't mean that's the best way to organise that information. Popcornfud (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's common to have subtopic articles when details are too long, too tangential or too esoteric to fit comfortably in the main article. Internet has subtopic articles such as Sociology of the Internet, Internet governance (<100 hits/day each), Internet security, Internet censorship, Languages used on the Internet (200-300 hits/day each) and History of the Internet (2250 hits/day). This article isn't really too different. If consensus is to merge it into the main article and leave this as a redirect, there's no real problem with that, but it's not an AfD issue. Although I still think length and WP:UNDUE issues tend to favor leaving it as a separate article. Station1 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to maybe merge instead of delete, but how could the OP have known that? And bringing up other articles is a bit of a flawed argument. And how exactly are we giving undue weight to non-prominent perspectives in an excessive subject by merging (not copy-pasting) content? There's already a need to update the content anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsPugle (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not suggesting this was anything but a good faith nomination, but I see no consensus to merge. So far I see 3 keep !votes and 2 merge !votes; the only consensus so far is not to delete. I brought up the other articles in answer to the previous comment only to illustrate by example that sometimes subtopic articles are the best way to organize information. As to the undue weight question, there's already a few sentences in the Internet article about capitalization. Adding any substantial part of this current article there may tend to give more importance than warranted to what is a very minor issue in the context of that article, with details of interest to only a minority of readers. Station1 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly subtopic articles are the best way to organise information in many cases. But your argument was that, since this subtopic article gets 100 views a day and is "of interest", it must be a good use of a subtopic. That doesn't logically follow. Any page linked from internet will get views, especially when it's linked right at the top of the article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I was unclear. The views only show interest in the topic, a response to the assertion that it is "a purely superficial and niche subject that has no public importance"; an argument against deletion only. Whether the topic should be merged into the longer and broader article is a secondary issue; the arguments against that are length and undue weight. Station1 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convinced of standalone notability just by looking at the references section. Covering all this information in Internet would certainly cause WP:UNDUE issues. SD0001 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Internet#Terminology section on the main internet page to concisely summarise the history of the term, including capitalisation issues, based on reliable sources from the last few years. I have examined the content on the Capitalization of Internet article and, disregarding stuff that is poorly sourced or not sourced at all, frankly I'm not seeing much content that would be worth integrating into the subsection. I'm sure someone could do the digging to find enough material for another paragraph or so, but do we really need an entire page, to document several years of bickering between style guides and dictionaries about capitalising this term? Worth summarising in a subsection, sure - along with other considerations like the (increasingly archaic) difference between the global internet and smaller internets - but anything more that is just trivia. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article gives the history of the name and capitalization of and invention. The article is notable, very-well referenced, and is balanced in tone. The nominator's reason for deletion is without merit, and his statement that the article is mere trivia is irrelevant. We rely on outside reliable sources not personal opinion. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet#Terminology where it makes good sense to cover this topic in context. The idea that a capitalization issue rates its own article seems peculiar, or perhaps ludicrous. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find this article hilarious, but the point here is to write an encyclopedia, not make jokes. Popcornfud already wrote everything that should be written about this subject in Internet#Terminology, we're not losing anything by deleting this article. Tercer (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2020 (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.