Talk:Piha

History of surfing
The link to A History of Surfing in Piha is being removed by several editors as spam. I disagree. I think the link has value, especially as a reference for the "Surfing and surf lifesaving" section. Surfing is, after all, one of the major attractions of the area. I have no connection to the Piha Surf School, although I do visit the beach every few years. - gadfium 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've certainly seen worse external links, and could live with it. However, what about the three external links currently in the article. I know people stick tourist and accommodation information in articles, but only useful stuff should be there to avoid a never-ending list. While the first link is dubious, the second and third are suspect in my view. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the first existing link is okay. It contains significant local content, is regularly updated, and doesn't appear to be pushing any commercial product. I agree the second and third should be removed.- gadfium 03:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so would you like to replace the second and third with the "History of Surfing" link. That's fine for me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My name is Phil Wallis. I am an event director of 2012 NZ national (50th anniversary) surf championship held at Piha. The http://www.pihasurfschool.com/about-piha.html is a text from our 2009 NZ national championship paper booklet (I was an event director of it too). Surfing is the blood of Piha and all its community and businesses are exist around surfing. pihasurfschool.com is my website. I ask you to allow our history link. willig.net is not associated with Piha - we would remove the link if you allow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.243.225 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome, but please be aware that the external links for the article will be decided using the standard procedures for Wikipedia (WP:EL), and it is not a good idea to personalize the discussion because such things are not relevant, and can convince independent editors that a link is being pushed for unhelpful reasons (from our point of view). Thanks for introducing yourself, but it's best that established editors continue the discussion. I support the change made by gadfium. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed two external links, and reinstated the History of Surfing in Piha one, as this is the consensus so far. I am aware that this discussion is still very young, and welcome further opinions.- gadfium 05:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talkpage to comment here. As I see it, this page is about Piha. The link is to 'history of surfing in Piha'. Those two subjects do not match, such an external link is maybe suitable on Surfing in Piha (if surfing in Piha is notable enough for an own page here). Note that it is not Wikipedia's task to link to everything about a subject, there is much which will not pass the threshold. And that is not only history of surfing, it would also go for many other things - typical family names, the local newspaper. That type of links lay totally out of the scope of Wikipedia, that is what search engines exist for, or internet directories (dmoz - having a link to the dmoz might be appropriate here - and the dmoz could also contain links to newspapers, tourist information, etc.). If surfing in Piha is notable enough to be mentioned here (I am not an expert in Piha), then it will get an own section or significant mention, and when people then want to go surfing or know more about it, then they will search for more info on Google. See WP:NOT and WP:NOT and the intro of WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)