Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Loop


 * 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.  kur  ykh   07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Spider Loop

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism which is really guerrilla spam. A prod was removed with a rather revealing comment: "the phrase is catchy &hellip; Let's see if it catches on". &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) The term spider loop is prolific in Florida and perhaps all of the South East U.S. it may be due to marketing efforts of the company that coined the phrase but none the less it is a common phrase that should be available to those that do not fully understand it's concepts. Spider loop is not a neologism as it is two separate but equal words that define a single objective. Spider referring to search engine spiders or crawler and loop referring to Infinite Loop as in a computer program that has no end. The words when combined describe a condition or theory on which an internet marketing plan can be derived, and many have. The lack of a phrase to describe such a theory has in the past been a deturrent from using the theory. I don't care if the article links to the coiners of the phrase or not. If the concern of the over zealous is to redefine the article so that it does not give credit to those who defined the phrase then so be it, but edit the article to remove the credit don't delete it! -- Prefict (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008


 * Delete, self-promotional material. No sources, and a number of rather ridiculous claims - including one claim that this technique "has been used since the inception of http protocal" [sic]. (Entirely implausible, given that search engines and SEO techniques didn't spring fully formed from the head of Tim Berners-Lee.) The fact that it's a term used primarily by a company which we don't even have an article on (SpiderLoop) seals it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the author gets a few points for trying to fix the statement in question, it's still incorrect. Early web search engines such as WWWW necessarily predated commercial SEO by a significant interval. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for not verifying notability, for starters. Seemes to be an embryonic neologism. It may well catch on (although unlikely), but WP certainly isn't the place to use as a spring-board.  one brave  monkey  08:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All else aside, if this were a prolific phrase, there would be plenty of sources. Anyway, "neologism" can also refer to new combinations of long established words, at least for AFD purposes.  Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are thousands of listings on WP that are simply definitions of a company or a company name many of which are so insignificant that they have done little more then create a single film or published an unknown book. The fact is that Micheal Stecher and Heather Coleburn did coin the phrase spider loop in December of 2000 the phrase is used and it does partially relate to a company name that has been in existence since 2001 the word and the company name are more relevant then many of the other listings on WP that have been here for years. If the pherase does become more prolific in a larger area of the US the article will just have to be added again. Removing it now would just prolong the enevitable, and be a loss to the current users of the phrase that are currently seeking more information about it. Isn't that what WP is for? To deliver information on subjects that people are interested in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.93.221 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * edit made further edit to article per Zetawoof : further edit Prefict (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Further Arguement neologism states that 'The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people' spider loop does not fit this reason for deletion. Spider loop is well defined, the article makes spider loop well understood and it does not have different meanings for different poeple. If the reason for defining an article as a neologism and more importantly removing it as a neologism is the reason stated above then spider loop should be exempt as it does not fit the criteria Prefict (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC).  *keep this guy is right. It's a good word and I like it.


 * 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.