Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single-letter second-level domain


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Single-letter second-level domain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the article is uncited WP:EL-violating WP:LISTCRUFT. The Project94 section is cited to a primary source, and has no coverage in reliable sources. The "Two-letter domain names" section doesn't belong to this article at all. The "Market value of single- or two-letter domains" section is an example farm, and should be repurposed to the topic of market value of single-letter domains in general. The "Controversy" section does not cite any secondary sources and contains one unnecessary example. Therefore, I propose that this article is nuked, since sources for this topic are available but the current article layout doesn't allow for useful prose. w umbolo  ^^^  16:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * keep. I agree it’s a bit of a mess but it is sourced, is on a clearly defined topic and covers that topic. It’s not just on single letter domain names but one and two letter TLDs, but they are clearly related and it is not so long that it needs splitting. Perhaps it needs renaming. External links can be removed, linked to articles if they exist but left unlinked otherwise. It might also be better done as a list article – it is half way there already – but that is not a reason to delete.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * keep. It's not going to win Article of the Day at present, but covers a well-defined topic with clarity. This TLD page just needs TLC :) -- Smb1001 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * keep. It could be merged into Second-level domain, but has sources and does make sense, and not sure how you'd do that cleanly. Definitely could use some clean up, but seems excessive to nuke. Icco (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (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.