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 Reflection (computer graphics)#Glossy reflection. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Wet floor effect

Wet floor effect (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I can find nothing online about this effect short of a few how tos for creation, but no evidence this was a notable web 2.0 technique. Possibly coined by a red link for a redlink, unverifiable at any rate. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per books on the link. Seems to have been over-popular in 2006. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment are you seeing anything in the books beyond "Web 2.0 means more than design element like glossy buttons, large colorful fonts and “wet-floor” effect." and similar? I see literally no discussion of it. Thanks StarM 22:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Reflection_(computer_graphics)#Glossy_reflection. On one hand, WP:NOTTEMP applies. On the other, GNG compliance is difficult to establish because most of the important sources originally given are 404 and what's left is a very limited selection. Seems to have been a short-lived fad in computer graphics and logos so the Reflection article is probably the best place to cover it, given what little remains. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Reflection (computer graphics) makes sense to me. AfDs from so long ago don't carry much weight since our standards for notability (and others) have evolved considerably since then. Doesn't seem to be enough coverage for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:SIGCOV says that the general notability guideline is that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. But this is not the case here. It is mentioned in passing by sources such as this. [1] [2] -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2020 (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.