Deletion of Shell account

Comment: Tothwolf, |assume good faith. I expect the outcome will benefit us both
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: This article has no |reliable sources as references and disputed external links, notability is questionable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: None of the references ''detail'' what a "shell account" actually is. ''Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.'' (
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I read both those articles, and maybe you should too.  They both reference shell accounts in the way defined in this article.  In the New York Times article, the author casually mentions his provider wished him to no longer use his shell account, and in the LA Times article it discusses how those with shell accounts with miss the provider they were using.  The first article only casually mentions the author using a shell account, but does not describe it, the second article does give an actual description.  They both mention shell accounts in the "legacy" way described by the article, so I'm not sure what your point is.  I wasn't using them as examples of sources, I was using them as examples of how popular it was in the early internet days.  You can also find plenty of references to how they are now used for IRC bots or hacker/cracker purposes, but I don't feel a need to drive this into the ground.  I stated keep and gave examples and evidence for that. I have no intention of rewriting the article myself but I would not like to see it deleted either.  Your usage of recomending the article for deletetion specifically goes against the whole point of the deletion policy.  To quote fD and eletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:D)