Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HTML editors Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HTML_editors

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. Courcelles 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_HTML_editors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete per http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK

• Keep, strongly there is no external link that is against the WP-policy! mabdul 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:LINKFARM says "except for...lists" and then links to WP:LSC. So I don't think you can use wp:LINKFARM to justify deleting this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty decent list with clear inclusion criteria and certainly doesn't fail WP:LINKFARM, as pointed out above. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When dealing with list/directory articles such as this, one question to keep in mind is this: Is the article likely to be useful to the reader? Considering that the article earned over 13000 hits every month for the last three months, I would say that the answer is a resounding "yes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The only delete vote comes from the nom, a single-purpose account that has few or no edits other than attempts at list deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This probably is not a candidate for speedy keep; that is when even the nom doesn't have a reason for deletion. Besides, SPAs are people, too. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  OP does not have a policy-based reason for nomination, per multiple arguments above. SK also allows for rejecting frivolous nominations. This account has only been used to make three AfDs, one of which has already been kept. --Karnesky (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as frivolous (See WP:SK#Applicability section 2.) Nom does not have a valid deletion reason as WP:LINKFARM applies to external links primarily, and this article is not a "Mere collections of internal links", but an organized list. (Which LINKFARM specifically doesn't apply to.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.