Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3char

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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3char

Not very notable (140 Ghits for 3char aim); unverified; original research. Delete current version, though a generic rewrite might be OK. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 08:37Z

• Speedy keep, Strong keep this is another one of those niche topics. Based on my knowledge and personal experience involving America Online, its security, and its users, there's a great deal to be said on this topic. Just not at 2AM. Notable, oft-ignored Internet subculture. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep requires the nominator to withdraw, or the nomination to have been disruptive or in bad faith. Please try another vote. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominator specified options other than deletion, and at the time of my vote, there were no votes for deletion. Whether speedy keep was applicable is ambiguous at worst, though as always, I'm open to interpretations alternative to my own :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to keep this article alive. It has recently come to my attention this subject was scheduled for deletion. -Kenton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.20 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 February 2006.

Please note that anonymous users are generally not allowed to vote. You can register an account if you'd like to contribute to this AfD :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes, although AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Anyone is welcome to have their say on an issue, but registering for an account does not automatically get you a 'vote' in the matter. Admins are entitled to discount votes from very new or unregistered users at their discretion. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unverifiable" is not accurate in this context, as use of this term can be verified through Google, which I invite you to do[1]. Thank you for taking the time to point out that speedy keep was no longer applicable here, though :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, weird how there are so many more Google hits for 3char "screen name" than for 3char. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 12:54Z

• I have cleaned up the article, so am now withdrawing my nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 13:05Z

I've added more detail to the article, including citations involving media coverage of incidents in which screen names, including, explicitly and by design, "3chars" were compromised using bugs in AOL's account security. Thanks, a lot, Quarl, for taking the time to improve this article.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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.