Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link love


 * 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   delete. Keep arguments boil down to WP:GHITS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. This is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Link love

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reasons For Deletion

Link Love is not an official or widely used Search Engine Optimization term. "link love" is another way to describe the process of building backlinks, which is already thoroughly covered in multiple SEO-related articles. This article does not provide any unique content and does not benefit the SEO category at all. Bsanders246 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Link Love is a widely used term - Google it and see for yourself. "Link love" is inadequately handled in other articles. This article provides an encyclopedic article about "link love". If it is deleted then readers who wish to know about "link love" will have no single place to learn about it. Readers should not be forced to wade through several other articles for an incomplete discussion of "link love". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term is notable and sufficient reliable information on the subject can be found to write a valid article.  The need for editing and expansion is not a reason to delete. Jehochman Talk 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of this back and forth over sources that aren't even used in the article. Let me summarize this article, as I read it: Link Love is a synonym for PageRank. Exchanging Link Love is good. Paying for Link Love is bad. Link Love is being deprecated in favor of Google Love. ZOMG! How encyclopedic. A must read! All supported by some links to web sites that I'm sure are very reliable. Pcap ping  18:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per wp:neo or merge/redirect to the seo article if there's anything missing (can't find anything worth merging myself). We don't have article for jargon such as this unless there are sources about the terms themselves, not just using them, as explained in the guideline. "Link love is a generic term that is analogous to PageRank." is pretty much all this article says! Compare with vistaster (afd). Pcap ping  08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Link love" is more than just a concept refered to as part of search engine optimization. It describes an essential aspect of the web. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pcap ping  03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No citations are needed in this discussion. We do not need to cite "the sky is blue".  Anybody with any familiarity with the topic understands that "link love" is a common, frequently used term of art.  You can Google it and see numerous returns of articles in reliable sources that use the term.  Jehochman Talk 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, Jehochman, not everyone is working for SEO company like yourself. "the sky is blue" doesn't require a citation in an article, but "Link love is more than just a concept refered to as part of search engine optimization. It describes an essential aspect of the web" is an assertion that surely does if it were included in the article. Just repeating it here with vague links to searches that don't obviously support the assertion fails short of WP:ATA. Many claims in the article are unsourced or poorly sourced. We would not be here (AfD) otherwise. Pcap ping  07:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, out of the first 10 google books hits, 7 are false positives: . The three that are on topic are two SEO books , and a "cyber law" book . Unlike the SEO books, the "law" book only mentions the term parenthetically, and it's in the section on... SEO! I remain unconvinced this topic cannot be handled in the SEO article satisfactorily, or that it has widespread usage outside that context. Pcap  ping  08:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the term is not used in many other SEO books. Among the top 10 google books results for SEO:
 * only has one occurrence in a long list of synonyms: link equity, link juice, page authority, link love, PageRank. Except for PageRank, which is also the name of an algorithm, I don't think the rest of the terms deserve a separate wiki page, for obvious reasons. (Link juice redirects to our SEO article.) Pcap ping  14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * : no occurrence
 * : no occurrence
 * : no occurrence
 * : 10 occurrences
 * : 3 occurrences (this is a book I've mentioned above)
 * : no occurrences
 * : no occurrences
 * : no occurrences
 * : no occurrences
 * As you can see most SEO books don't even use the term. They obviously use the concept, but this is already covered at SEO, PageRank, etc. This article is redundant and has practically no worthwhile contents, besides promoting a term that's used only a minority of the texts on the subject. Pcap ping  14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SEO is on online activity. Most of the reliable literature is published online. You can't prove anything by showing a bunch of random books that don't use a term. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are many articles in Search Engine Land, the most reliable source on this topic, that use "link love". Jehochman Talk 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Search Engine Land? I'm sure that unless I pay a commission the right consultant, all the information I can find is worthless. Pcap ping  15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. It is the leading publication on the topic.  Your assumptions of bad faith look a lot like you're just trying to upset other editors. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And your assertion that a dozen books by well-known publishes don't know what they're talking about is even more ridiculous than your feeble ad hominem attempt. Pcap ping  18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say they "don't what they're talking about." I said that you cannot prove non-notability be showing a handful of relatively low impact books that don't mention a term.  I just showed you a high impact publication that has used the term repeatedly, in multiple articles by multiple authors. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTWORD. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge any usable content into search engine optimization and delete as a neologism. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a bad idea, because these are not the same at all. The closest related article is PageRank, but as WAS 4.250 says above, these are not exactly the same.  PageRank is specific to Google, whereas link love is a generic term.  Link popularity might be a good target to redirect this term. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Definition of link love: Link love is a term used in the fields of search engine optimization and blogging to describe the effect that web pages rank better when they have more and higher quality links pointing at them. Google's PageRank algorithm was the first to measure link love and use the resulting value to rank web pages. Link love is a generic term that is analogous to PageRank.

Definition of backlinks: The number of backlinks is one indication of the popularity or importance of that website or page (though other measures, such as PageRank, are likely to be more important).

This would be similar to me creating a article called "Reference Love" to describe how references work in a business environment..

Bsanders246 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (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.