Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat 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 was merge to Hyperlink. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fat link

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "fat link" does not seem to appear in the cited references. As such, it is nothing more than a neologism that lacks notability. Furthermore, I'm also nominating the redirect for deletion:

-- Rhymoid (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Contrary to the nominator's claim, the term "fat link" is included in the first reference that I accessed (reference 7). I could not access reference 3, but the article includes a quote from that reference which uses the term. Did the nominator determine that the quote is spurious and does not actually appear in the reference? References 1 and 2 indicate alternate names for the "fat link" concept. One of those alternate names (Extended links) is used on the page XLink to discuss how that language implements this type of link. Gpc62 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't like this article: it's written poorly, the concept is obscure, and it's largely promotional for a few non-notable products that implemented related concepts. But the argument to delete is invalid. A merge with Hyperlink might be reasonable but should be discussed first at that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) 21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to hyperlink under types, because this is valid term and a type of hyper link but actually it doesn't deserve a standalone article at all. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hyperlink. It's a type of hyperlink. Not significant enough to stand on it's own; however, would be a useful component of the related article. Operator873^CONNECT 04:03, 29 November 2017 (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.