Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motivations for Contributing to Online Communities


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Motivations for Contributing to Online Communities
Unencyclopedic style, seems to be original research. It's possible it could blossom into a proper article, but I have my doubts. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not original research; the author does reference a published work. --Hyphen5 11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon closer examination, I stand corrected. The tone the article had just suggested it to me. Still, having references is not itself reason to keep it. Perhaps it would do better rewritten and merged into another article. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't merge. The article needs to be improved and expanded with other research, but I am confident the normal Wikipedia process will take care of that. At the moment this is a hot topic in academia, and therefore I think this should not be merged into another article (which anyway)? Lambiam Talk 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - virtually unmergeable, highly useful. Needs more citations, references, externals, etc., but still.  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-encyclopedic topic. Most info in this article would be original research if kept. Wickethewok 09:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's not a great wiki-article but I do think it's notable (I've read about this before) and it does attempt to cite sources MLA 11:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. At best, it's just a book report. At worst, it's a load of promotional crap. The author clearly created his account for the sole purpose of promoting this article. Nova SS 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Novasource. -- Rory 0 96 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it needs more sources and expansion. Lurleene 09:36, 23 March 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.