Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inbound link

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 of the debate was keep, after rewrite. -R. fiend 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inbound link

Delete as this was made as link spam and will attract more (note: I removed original creator's link and only other editors link as well). It's true a good article could in theory be made. I'm open to changing my mind, but I think there are enough other articles, where this could be mentioned. I'm also not sure if it qualifies as a dicdef. rob 07:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Spam magnet. Dlyons493 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At present, little more than a dictdef. I don't think there is a full article to be written about this subject, and it is surely a spam magnet. DES ^(talk) 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, I was wrong. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• How about a redirect to Hyperlink or something similar? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hefty article overhaul, I think this is a keeper now. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's quite difficult to understand even after the overhaul. I don't see why this deserves its own article. It doesn't seem relevant other than to webmonkeys. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, difficult to understand is not grounds for deletion. Why not pose your question on the article talk page and/or my talk page (as the rewrite author)? Additionally, not relevant to everybody is applicable to pretty much every article here. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to understand and that's a comment as to the state of the article. The motivation is that it's overly specific professional jargon. It's too technical and obscure to deserve it's own article, just like truck driver shop talk or nursespeak doesn't belong here. "Not relevant to everybody" is your wording, though, not mine. I wouldn't mind a short summary and redirect to hyperlink, though. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, relevant to webmonkeys and to those who study their behavior. Kappa 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's tantamount to professional, technical jargon as far as I see it. And who are these people who "study their behavior"? Behavioral scientists with Java-bananas? / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for Java-banana junkies. Alf ^melmac 10:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - I'm no longer asking for this to be deleted, based on the rewrite. I'm still skeptical, regarding link-spam, so I'll let others decide this. I suppose the real method for dealing with link-spam is blocking, more than deletion though. --rob 21:07, 20 September 2005 (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.