Deletion of Shitposting

Comment: Per  however this is not even a legitimate term to be defined
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTADICTIONARY)

Comment: nbsp;  with political overtones.&nbsp; Oldest source I saw was April 2016.&nbsp; The vulgarity is not by itself a reason to delete or delay, but fits in with WP:V's requirement that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".&nbsp; Further, it is highly inappropriate that Wikipedia should pick one of the extant definitions and become a leading source for defining this concept.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: This term appears to meet , as a thing that is being discussed and analyzed.  The article is currently a stub, but there are enough sources to expand it into a full article that is distinct from "Internet Troll".  I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't apply in this case because reliable sources have used the term, and its use is already popular on web forums, so its inclusion here isn't part of a campaign to increase its usage.  doesn't apply because the sources provided do provide encyclopedic coverage of the term beyond just the definition. ''The Independent'' discusses the demographics of shitposting, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/what-is-shitposting-donald-trump-us-election-2016-palmer-luckey-a7326111.html, and the ''Engineering and Technology'' article focuses on the political implications of shitposting. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/09/view-from-washington-palmer-luckey/. Other sources, like the piece from ''The Guardian'' above cover the real-world impacts of shitposting and go far beyond just mere dictionary definitions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)