Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overlinking (second 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, default to keep. - Bobet 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking
First, please see the original VfD from 2004. That closed as no consensus, largely because of repeated claims that "This is not an article. It is an unfinished scrap of writing. It is on a legitimate topic, but has not been written yet." In short, two years ago, there was a claim that this was not just a piece of wikimeta and that it would grow into an article that would meet Wikipedia's expectations.

It hasn't done that. It it uncited. It sets arbitrary characterizations and "rule[s] of thumb" that fail WP:NPOV at best. And, two years later, it is still entirely self-referential. Furthermore, there are no links to this entry from the mainspace. It is being referenced entirely from talk and userpages as a surrogate for WP:CONTEXT. Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this version of the article due to the NPOV-ness inherent. I'm not a computer/internet type (beyond using one to access the other), but if it's a real thing then it probably deserves an article on it. Such an article shouldn't, however, be prescriptive and certainly not to the extent that this one is. BigHaz 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NPOVcruft. The 'article' has had plenty of time to grow. Th ε Halo Θ 12:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete probobly better on meta or meatball. Viridae Talk 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Allwiki" is already mentioned in Build the web; and a lot of this article is a straight copy of Manual of Style (links), hence the prescription. Uncle G 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I cite the article weasel word as an example; The term is important, linked mostly from talk pages, and has only one reference. A search on google for "overlinking" can get me one legit reference. Furthermore, I've cleaned up the article so that isn't self-referential (save for one link to the manual of style). --Mitaphane talk 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Overlinking certainly exists outside of Wikipedia (for another discussion of the concept, see this article by John C. Dvorak). It seems like a legitimate topic to me - just give it some more time to grow.  Two years isn't that long, especially when Wikipedians are busy with a million+ other things. Zagalejo 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dict def, neologism, and inherently POV. -- Koffieyahoo 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mitaphane and hope it grows. While not a major phenomenon, it has merited an editorial by a known, respected writer.  I consider it a piece of Internet grammar/style which has consequences outside the scope of a Wikipedia manual of style.  That said, a link to an overlinked web article outside of a wiki would be helpful. --Newt ΨΦ 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. No good reason to justify its deletion. Sparsefarce 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it to be interesting, and I feel expansion is probable. --Chris Griswold 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently sourced and, well, not to get all Wikipedia-God-King-arrogant here, but if that generic an internet-related term were in general use, I'd have seen it before. Ahem. Sandstein 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've seen it called another of things (including there are too bleepin' many links in the page), but I can't recall seeing "overlinking" before.  (Two weeks is long enough once the editors are notified that there's a problem.  Two years is much too long.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Important style guideline -- Writtenonsand 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It isnt a wikipedia style guideline, and even if it was it wouldn't belong in the article namespace. ( I believe there is a short page on this in the WP namespace somewhere, but I can't remember what its called. Viridae Talk 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That WP namespace page is the WP:CONTEXT I mentioned in the listing. I'll admit, it took me forever to find, as the shortcut is not intuitive. Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a universal phrasebook, and there is nothing asserted in the way of notability that would overcome the inherent problems of POV definition.  "Overcooking" is also a legitimate topic, in common usage, surely has been addressed by known, respected writers, but is still not in need of a separate encyclopedic entry, no matter how many burnt roasts one encounters. - David Oberst 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Half-serious comment: We do have an article on overeating... :) Zagalejo 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to consider the term notable once the concept of binge-linking becomes widely discussed, and Overlinkers Anonymous is formed... :) - David Oberst 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The article needs to be developed more. Overlinking is a serious problem at times, when certain editors with obsessive tendencies ruin good articles using this practice. An article should only contain relevant hyperlinks. There is no good reason for deleting the article. If someone doesn't like it, they can ignore it. It may be important for others who don't have obsessive compulsive tendencies. -- Fyslee 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again - we already have a page on it in the WP namespace. It belongs on meta or meatball. Viridae Talk 23:33, 14 August 2006 (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.