Deletion of Sea lioning

Comment: Clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as a stand-alone article; passes . See for example: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-11-30-how-to-combat-fake-news-online-bring-reddit-and-other-online-forums-into-the-classroom "How to Combat Fake News Online? Bring Reddit (and Other Online Forums) Into the Classroom". Results from Google books: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sea+lioning%22&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie0cPa-djYAhXxguAKHbuZD-I4ChD8BQgQKAE&biw=1207&bih=586&dpr=2. Appears to be a notable internet trolling tactic. Snippet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: ndash; I don't believe the argument that this topic passes  resolves the main issue of this article: that it is overly short and can easily be described in full in the ''Wondermark'' article, as well as Wiktionary. I would like to know what {{ping|Jayron32|XOR'easter|EvergreenFir|Guy Macon|Miniapolis|Jorm}} think of this, as they voted "keep" purely on the fact that this term meets NEO
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as others have said, passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: ndash; this is currently a dictionary definition, and should be listed on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Of course, our article on ''Wondermark'' can say a line or two about how it coined this work... and then most of this article would be redundant. (Edit: In fact, I did just that. You can't tell me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wondermark&type=revision&diff=819977878&oldid=819554382 this edit constitutes |undue weight) No reason to keep this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to Wondermark. Yes, it passes . However the article must have encylopaedic information - {{tq|That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.}} - . Currently it doesn't meet that, having only the definition and etymology. I was looking for the possibility of expansion, and the extra information I can find is: that it was derived in relation to gamergate and that it has been "embraced" by the subreddit KotakuinAction sourced to this unpublished "computer science" paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.05851.pdf (not a super RS for this I think). IMHO the possibility of expansion is a little grim based on the sources I've found so far; so it should be merged
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:WORDISSUBJECT)

Comment: To quote : "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term"  Every source currently in the article is ''about'' the term, exactly as required.  This passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to Wondermark - Apparently I'm not seeing what other people are seeing. Where is the in-depth treatment of this concept beyond just referencing that comic (which is coverage of a particular comic strip such that it should be included in an article about the comic). The sources cited are mostly personal blogs/SPS and/or brief mentions. I'm searching myself, and it's a challenging search mainly because people use the term without describing it beyond a definition (if that) based on the comic. To pass  I would want to see more reliable sources at least in significant part ''about'' the term, going into more detail than just reiterating what the comic itself said. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)