Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods of website linking (2nd nomination)


 * 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Methods of website linking
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A loosely associated collection of article stubs. Most are unreferenced or barely referenced. A few might deserve their own articles, but most would not. Many are Neogolisms that really do not belong on the project. But whether any individual element deserves it's own article or not, this hash of a collection should not be on the project IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hyperlink. This article has few references - most of it is original research or essay-like. I think it should be cut down to the most well-referenced/notable terms, and then merged into the existing article on Hyperlinks, without the neologisms or original research. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Oppose - Hyperlink is about the technology and syntax of a single link, and this seems to divert and overwhelm the purpose of that article. However, I think this article would work better as Uses of website linking, as this is more about the purposes of creation of links.  A webring is, technically, a circular directed graph of links, but the purpose is to fully connect together a list of links and let users browse related sites.  Many of the subjects can be grouped based upon topological patterns, but description of each should cover the assorted uses.  Looking at the first section's phrase "Reciprocal link", there are 6 in Google News at the moment (1 is numerology and not relevant), but they're all being used as industry terms the same way biologists mention "dorsal cavity", and to find something suitable as a reference one has to search for an article discussing dorsal cavities, but we can see that the neologism is in use... and Google Scholar does provide 71 items for "Reciprocal link" SEO so there is material for our editors to examine.  There should be a "Wikipedia Standards" header on the article.   -- SEWilco (talk) 20:53, 16 June 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.