Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-www

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. There's pretty clear consensus that this article should not be on Wikipedia, but should at most be a part of another article. If anyone wants the deleted page content in order to add it somewhere else, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No-www

No-www (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I have trouble classifying whether this is original research, original synthesis, or just non-notable, but in any case I don't think that it warrants an article; at best a brief mention in Domain name system. A number of sources are given, but these are basically blogs, private/minor websites, or pages that don't mention the main topic of the article (an initiative called "No-www"). The problem described here seems to be real, but it's just not a suitable encyclopedic topic. For those that believe in the Google test: The words/acronyms "no" and "WWW" are incredibly frequent, and counting alone doesn't show that the topic is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to subdomain, of which this could be a section. All the no-www.org content should be removed as non-notable including the section on "compliance classes", something they themselves made up, using terminology that is inevitably confusable with e.g. "A record". There's definitely been an issue here since the beginning of the web -- I'm pretty sure if I checked USENET I'd find discussion ca. 1994 about companies using "non-standard" subdomains for web servers like "web" instead of "www". --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung. There's not very much here, but you could say something about it. I'll count it as an initiative when I see an Internet draft on the subject. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:NOT since it's essentially a mirror of the web site. WillOakland (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Links are not to reliable sources. Not enough there for a decent article. In addition, encyclopedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: as above.  RGTraynor  16:57, 9 May 2008 (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.