Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lurker

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The result was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator) with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lurker

Lurker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is very unlikely to ever satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, shown in TheFreeDictionary.com, here, notable internet term. Wooyi 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can see several sources in the article. Nardman1 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: In your opinion, is this article (or can it be) referenced in a way required by WP:V? —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete <change to keep per nom. The only cited content comes to about the size of a dictionary definition. Move it to wiktionary, maybe, but not likely to ever become a proper encyclopedic article. Not enough context is asserted to build on beyond what is currently salvageable. Jerry lavoie 03:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That the sourced content is a stub is only a reason for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, if it is a perpetual stub with no scope whatsoever for expansion. Our policy also requires that you look for sources yourself before coming to such a conclusion, which you haven't done. Looking for sources turns up pages 436 of ISBN 0735713332, which describes "Lurker mode" in Macromedia Fash UI components, where a user watches but does not interact; and ISBN 1852335327 which has an entire chapter, "Silent Participants: Getting to know lurkers better" on pages 110–132, on Usenet lurkers. Fixing the article requires nothing more than cutting out the original research and the unverifiable content and adding in content based upon these and other sources, which doesn't involve an administrator hitting a delete button at any point, and which you can do. Please adhere to our deletion policy in future. Uncle G 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right close to an admonishment, UncleG. Are you certain you have the commission to dole out such? For you to assume that I vote on these AfD's without doing my own research is a bad faith assumption, and one I do not appreciate. I did not say there was no context. I said the context did not amount to more than a dictionary entry. See WP:NOT. I stand on my decision, and agree to disagree with you. But I am not prepared to tolerate being admonished by you as above. Please extend a little more courtesy and keep personal attacks out of these discussions. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was equally addressing me. Obviously, he did better work than us. Had I done that, I wouldn't have filed this article for deletion. I'm fine with being admonished for doing lousy work. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Uncle G, own experiences, and others mentioned here. Mathmo ^Talk 10:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Inevitable change to keep per reliable sources. I checked the sources provided by Uncle G and he's right (just how did you find those?). I even found two more mentions of the term in ISBN 0634010123 and ISBN 0764544209, through an amazon.com search for "usenet lurker". Case closed, it seems. My bad. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 February 2007 (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.