Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interwiki links


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem notable enough. Seems to only deal with a feature of MediaWiki, and the only sources are part of MediaWiki's source code.  flarn 2006  [u t c] time: 05:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD: essentially duplicate of Help:Interwiki linking. Shouldn't be a redirect, as Help is the proper namespace for such metacontent.  Only additional information is too technical for inclusion in Wikipedia (and that's coming from a programmer). —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CSD#A10? The article was created in 2001‎! Christian75 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Creation date isn't a hard criterion. By speedy delete, I mean it tentatively qualifies, and that should probably be taken into account.  I don't mean there should actually be a speedy deletion when a discussion is already in place. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, and there's no real benefit to having this in article space that would be enough for WP:IAR. Ansh666 09:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or move and expand per Trevj below. Ansh666 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep – looking at Google Books it seems covered in a lot of books, and not just two lines. Help:Interwiki linking has nothing to do with the article space. And there is no problem that articles are WP:TECHNICAL. Christian75 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Lightweight markup language Redirect to Hyperlink, per WP:BEFORE. I don't think there's a great deal of encyclopedic detail about this topic, but it deserves inclusion within a larger topic area. It's a likely search term. -- Trevj (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki, the "language"/framework behind interwiki links, is already listed on Lightweight markup language. Interwiki links aren't a language so much as an ad hoc feature. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the markup for an interwiki link exactly the same in all wiki languages? -- Trevj (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I've revised my view above to a more appropriate destination. An interwiki link is a type of hyperlink, so that seems to me to be a good generic target. The subject is already covered there, and so there's no need to merge any content (which is partly WP:OR and how-to anyway). -- Trevj (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge This article fits perfectly under MediaWiki, if it's trimmed down a bit. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * However, interwiki links aren't confined to MediaWiki: surely they're a feature of all wiki software. -- Trevj (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really: intra-wiki links are the essence of wikis, and general web links are almost universal in wikis, but this describes a niche feature for connections between similar wikis running certain software. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course that's right - apologies for my confusion. However, wikis other than MediaWiki can cater for interwiki links, e.g. DokuWiki. -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment currently redirects to Hyperlink. (Consensus has changed since its RfD in 2008.) -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. OK, I guess an alternative would be to move the content to, which could then be expanded to cover the more generic topic area. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but am inclined to consider that this topic on its own neither meets WP:GNG, nor warrants deletion (as a valid encyclopedic search term). -- Trevj (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge-reduce & redirect to Wiki (which does not preclude a mention at Hyperlink) Coverage in WP:RS sources of this rather trivial feature is usually far less elaborate than the essay we have here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge verifiable information, and the term is mentioned in the hyperlink article (so that is already a suitable redirect target) but parts could be added to wiki (making that a more suitable target), so GNG isn't a reason to delete. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (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.