Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overlinking


 * 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 Keep. ST47 Talk 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

 * — (View AfD)

Not only hopelessly self-referenced, but the links are deliberately screwed to prove the point. - Sikon 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, this AfD was accidently listed on the page of january 9, 2006 recently . I just moved it here to correct the listing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The reference by John C. Dvorak, one of the most respected technology writers in history, is verification. --Oakshade 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is what encyclopedias are for DelPlaya 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep although the article needs more references, this is a valid concept with applications in web usability (I know there have been quantitative studies) and search engine optimization. The term itself is not necessarily used in formal style guides, though. It should be possible to write an article about these aspects. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  Buck  ets  ofg  19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Right now, the article only has a single reference, which appears to be the originator of the term. This article has been up for AfD twice before, in November 2004 and this past August. If this is all we get in two years of editing, what hope is there that this can be turned into a useful article? No one has bothered to find new sources, even since the August AfD. This suggests either the references don't exist, or the article is simply never going to be updated to meet WP:V. -- Kesh 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but I can't find that the article was ever tagged for cleanup, expansion, lack of references, or any of its obvious sins. It really seems like we should do something with a concept that's a recognized longstanding guideline for our own project. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, Dvorak is in no way the originator of the term; here's a 1995 citation, published in another form in WIRED in 1996.--Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. Still, those only indicate the concept existed. Nothing suggests it to be notable, and those links do nothing but explain the concept again. Maybe this should be turned into a redirect to another article on web design, but it still doesn't seem to be enough to exist on its own. -- Kesh 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to web design per Kesh. There are verifiable references that permit this topic's inclusion, but no assertion of notability to justify its status as an individual article.  Furthermore, the topic is not currently disucssed at web design, which means a merge earns us one stronger article in place of two weaker ones.  (Fair disclosure: I was the nominator for the August AFD of this article).  Serpent&#39;s Choice 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of sources for this. --- RockMFR 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is an important topic in Wikipedia and elsewhere Saga City 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)\
 * Merge and redirect per Kesh. (I realize this counts as a "keep" !vote, but it can be done after the article is kept.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (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.