Talk:Linkword

From VfD:

Better bring it up here. Is it unencyclopedic? --Marco 09:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Where a profit can be made, the internet has a tendency to skew the numbers, but we have 12,400 hits, almost all of them trying to sell a language-learning system based on the Linkword method.  I'll go with Keep and begin cleanup right away.  SWAdair | Talk  10:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I get 5,500 hits in English, many of which are NOT this product/method. EG "Linkword Technology" keyboard mfgr (there are also "Linkword" power supplies, etc.--not sure if it's the same mfgr), a variety of "linkword" puzzles, some computing term, Perl code, hypertext term, C++ code, etc. Niteowlneils 13:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If it is so, the page must be disambiguated. Mikkalai 18:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, I simply put "Linkword" into Google, got 12,400 hits and did some spot-checking. After Niteowlneils' research I'm not sure what to do with this one.  If none of the possible disambiguation subjects would individually be notable enough for an article, then I don't think we should disambiguate.  With the numbers involved, it looks like that might be the case.  Changing vote to abstain.  SWAdair | Talk  02:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly redir or merge/redir to Mnemonic. Niteowlneils 13:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * keep I found the entry useful. KeyStroke
 * About 12,400 hits: in fact, there are only around 600 of them. The rest is "phantoms" of the net. Inf you try to browse all hits in google, you'll see this. And not all of them are about learning language. Mikkalai 02:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to (the nonexistent) Linkword process or thereabouts and then add helpful examples. After reading the article, I'm still not sure how it works, and I would truly like to know.  --Ardonik.talk 02:47, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I find one author (Michael Gruneberg) and one company website associated with the language-learning process described in this article. See here for their self-reported publicity (seven articles).  The author has published several books on this topic (see Amazon.uk).  Despite having no direct ad links, this article strikes me as more like an ad than an encyclopedia article.  Weak keep  though I also like Niteowlneils' suggestion that this could be a footnote in mnemonic.  Rossami 03:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * After watching the results here I believe the page should be either deleted or merged. --Marco 04:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I wait with bated breath to hear what your second option is. :-) --Ardonik.talk 15:41, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, there it is. Well, that wasn't very exciting.  If your second option had been "OR DESTROYED!" then the waiting would have been worthwhile.  :-) --Ardonik.talk 21:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - not encyclopedic - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion