This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirected to Inline linking Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article misleadingly conflates a number of unrelated actions under the rubric "bandwidth theft". It gives the impression that this term has some legal or technical meaning, which it does not. Some of the actions described are not crimes at all. Others are crimes under unrelated laws which do not treat with "theft".
Many pieces of the article appear to me to be original research, or simply opinion presented as fact. Others are simply erroneous or misleading. The title, and the presentation of this morass as a single legal or technical category called "bandwidth theft", rather caps it off.
I don't see any way that this can be improved in place: the title needs to go; most of the content is misleading; and what isn't misleading is redundant with other articles that deal better with the specific subjects. That's why I'm recommending it for deletion. For more discussion of the problems, please see the talk page. FOo 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does the title need to go? What other title is suitable for this concept? Kappa 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The title needs to go because it's a made-up category. There isn't really a connection between the things being described as "bandwidth theft" -- it's just several unrelated things that someone doesn't like, thrown together and given a title. There's no reason to expect that there is a right title for this grouping of things.
- It's as if someone created an article entitled "Sex theft" and put into it discussions of rape, adultery, copyright violation of pornography, and faking orgasm. Some of those are crimes; all of them have something to do with sex; but they don't belong to a category called "sex theft". It's just made up. --FOo 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Webmasters bitch about it, sometimes frequently and with great vigour, and I think it's notable. Is it illegal to link to an image on somebody else's web page? Good God, no, but theft the crime and theft the concept can be two different things. Lord Bob 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)- The action you're talking about is dealt with in our articles on deep linking and inline linking -- two neutral titles which describe the action rather than pretending that it's a crime. Slapping the mistaken term "theft" on top is just a bog-standard NPOV violation, since it assumes the point of view of people who think this action should be illegal. Moreover, what do you suggest be done with the bits of this article that deal with spam, malware, advertising itself, and other unrelated things that someone wants to call "theft"? --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, I don't think the title is nearly as bad as you say...although I do see a problem, the term is the term in common usage. You want to move it, fine, but that's obviously not an AfD matter. And if non-bandwidth-theft related content is in there, then my suggestion would be to take it out (or, if it's content that's only bandwidth-theft-related to a small group, mention it in a little section). Be bold and so forth! That said...and here's the part you're going to like because I admit my ignorance...I wasn't aware of inline linking and deep linking. Oops. So I change my vote to merge to inline/deep linking and redirect to inline linking, which from my experience is the more common usage. Lord Bob 23:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- The action you're talking about is dealt with in our articles on deep linking and inline linking -- two neutral titles which describe the action rather than pretending that it's a crime. Slapping the mistaken term "theft" on top is just a bog-standard NPOV violation, since it assumes the point of view of people who think this action should be illegal. Moreover, what do you suggest be done with the bits of this article that deal with spam, malware, advertising itself, and other unrelated things that someone wants to call "theft"? --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. it's a lousy article, but the term has Google hits well into six figures. Here's an example of a standard discussion of what's referred to. http://www.buffyguide.com/webmasters/directlink.shtml Monicasdude 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
vote struck by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
- Well, since the title "bandwidth theft" is an NPOV violation, how would you feel about changing this to a redirect to inline linking, the neutral title for the subject of that page? This assumes, of course, that the spam, malware, and advertising sections are not worth considering. --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a commonly used term, maybe the most commonly used term. It definitely refers to a different concept than inline linking. It's not an NPOV violation to describe the way the term is used. And with 150,000+ Google hits, it shouldn't be ignored. Monicasdude 16:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with prejudice to inline linking. Gazpacho 20:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to
deep linkinginline linking, since that's usually what the phrase refers to. Bandwidth "theft" is not a legally recognized or even well-defined term, and the article as it stands is full of POV and weasel words. --David Wahler (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Article has some major problems, but it should not be deleted. It needs re-writing though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, what sort of rewriting do you think would be necessary to fix the major problems? How could the article compensate for the inherent NPOV violation of the title, which accuses people of a (nonexistent) crime? Should the unrelated accusations against Web advertisers be kept? The suggestion of a connection to spam and malware? --FOo 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But consider turning into a disambig that takes people to the pages on various issues that are known by this term rather than an article in its own right. Plugwash 21:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The article doesn't claim this to be theft in any legal sense. It's a term in very common usage, but which many less knowledgable computer users don't understand. The expression clearly has applications beyond inline linking, which doesn't always constitute bandwidth theft. TheMadBaron 21:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is poorly written, but the subject matter is notable, and the title is proper. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per OwenX. Tonywalton | Talk 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate between deep linking, inline linking, and other similar things. --Carnildo 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The term is in use, although it is somewhat provocative.
struck by closing admin because unsigned vote Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.