Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Web Performance Optimization Resources


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Web Performance Optimization Resources

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete, appears to be a large promotional list of products and bloggers Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - under G11. This is nothing but a list of external promotional links. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, though perhaps it could be integrated into Web performance optimization. This is a useful list of resources available for readers interested in this topic. It is deliberately vendor-independent and lists both free and paid-for options. Articles like List of corporations by market capitalization seem to have no problem listing large numbers of repetitive links to profit-making entities. I see this list as both more benign and more useful. — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a list of internal Wikilinks on this subject can be useful, but when nominated (and I cast my !vote) it looked like this. Perhaps with a very limited number of external reference-only links I could see keeping it. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been removing external links - let me know what an acceptable number is. I feel like it's at the point now where it should be keepable, but please let me know if you want more changes.  Jnklein314 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed links from several book titles which went externally to O'Reilly. Reformated the book list for consistency with other lists of books which appear on Wikipedia (e.g. List of science fiction novels). webbj74 (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, this discussion isn't moving forward, and it seems like we have largely reached consensus that this article can stay. Can the notice be removed? Jnklein314 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we finalize this discussion? I'd love to come to a conclusion and get the notice removed. With the latest changes I hope the article complies with all of Wikipedia's standards. Jnklein314 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys, help me understand how this kind of resource can exist on Wikipedia. The rational and goals for this page can be found on my blog: A New Source For WPO Resources. I'd love to know more about the right way to get this approved. -- jnklein314 —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there's a fine line between "promotion of a lot of bloggers and products" and "list of valuable resources, most of which are free and open source, but some of which are paid products". There must be examples that work on Wikipedia that are in the latter category. Jnklein314 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed many of the external links, and pointed the company names at their respective Wikipedia articles. Let me know if I'm going in the right direction. Jnklein314 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading Wikipedia docs, and it seems like this should fall into the category of Stand-alone lists. What needs to change for this article to qualify under that description? I'm happy to write a better lead in. Jnklein314 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is exactly the kind of list that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. It's wide open to abuse for promotional purposes, as it doesn't have a strict definition of what qualifies. The list itself also has no inherent notablity - it's not enough to say that web performance optimization itself is a notable topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, obvious spam magnet and not much more. Certainly people can find this useful, which might give commercial sites some motivation to keep such a list, but not encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why there are delete votes, doesn't this fit the description of Stand-alone lists pretty closely? Jnklein314 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As an example of the above, List_of_Adobe_Flash_software is a perfect example of such a list, and it is 100% vendor specific. If that can exist on Wikipedia, why can't this? Jnklein314 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment List of Adobe Flash software is extremely specific, which is absolutely required for lists. Web Performance Optimization Resources is much vaguer and much more abusable. You'll note that there's no 'list of terrorist organizations' on Wikipedia, but there are articles such as 'US State Department list of foreign terror organizations' and 'list of designated terrorist organizations' where a government has to do the designating. One kind of example is specific and clear, while the other is arguable and abusable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment So would each individual sub-list qualify as a valid article, since they are much more specific? Jnklein314 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 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.