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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lurkeritus[edit]

Lurkeritus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It's a neologism, uncited, and probably original research. It's not an acknolwedged "psychological disease." My prod was removed by an anonymous user. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable neologism, very few google hits (search for "lurkeritis", also), no secondary sources cited, and it's not likely that there are any secondary sources to be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7. The article is totally ridiculous, and my predecessors' substantive research confirms it. YechielMan 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete, delete Wow. I'd be astonished to find real sources for this. (shakes head) --Pigman^talk 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy this chozzerai per WP:SNOW. --N Shar 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7 per YecheilMan. Patent nonsense, without even being amusing.... Quantitative: 0 ghits in English, 5 ghits in all languages. WP:NFT. -- MarcoTolo 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 08:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.