Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link management

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. Proto::type 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link management

Link management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A page which seems to exist solely for the purpose of providing a convenient external link near the end. Salad Days 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Link management is a legitimate subject for an article and the external link referencing a patented product relating to it has relevancy because it is a.) a recent patent, b.) indentified as a "new-invention" (rather than a refinement or enhancement of an existing invention) by the patent office and c.) the only patent so far issued in this entire field. There is also pertinent non-commercial, on-topic information in this article, which is far more than you can say about the tens of thousands of pure puffery articles that overflow Wikipedia like visitors in a Roach Motel.

Take a look at Squeezebox network music player for a typical example -- a complete article filled with links pimping a multi-hundred-dollar music player, complete with additions hyping each new product release in the line.

With that as the standard, what is wrong with this overall informative piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.183.17 (talk • contribs)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, original research/essay/advertising. Getting a patent doesn't establish notability. Demiurge 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article is a thinly disguised advert -- Whpq 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising... and the above anon comment didn't exactly help either. Wikipedia belongs to the editors who created it not the people trying to wikilawyer themselves into Wikipedia with arguments like this is better than most other articles. MartinDK 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It qualifies as notable, its a signig category, and the articles is not commercial spam--there are other such products and they can and should be added as external links.DGG 23:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

comment - Actually, other external links to other products would not be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Also note that the product being touted in this article actual refers to Reciprocal link -- Whpq 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I call spam, and am betting on a speedy here. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. meshach 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*Keep. It is a legitimate topic and notable and, most importantly, a launching pad for discussion of an important web subject. The fact that it has only one external link today and that is to a company which happens to hold the only patent in the field, does not mean that it can't have 20 external links to both commercial and non-commercial information providers on this subject tomorrow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekb606 (talk • contribs)

Note - I've put a strkethrough on the keep above. The above text was unsigned, as noted. IP 216.229.183.17 editted the text to add the "keep" in front of the comment. One should not alter other people's comments/votes. -- Whpq 10:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well, there ought to be an article on the subject, although this one ain't it. There was a similar article (same name? can't recall) on the subject deleted some months ago. As I understand it, link management comes down to, or at any rate includes, this basic concept: If your web site is xyz.com, and a person types xyz.com/products in his browsers url bar, he should get to your products page. Not to a 404 or a directory listing. I guess there's more to it than that, I dunno. But whatever it is, this article doesn't make clear. And yeah there's a spam link too. But its am actual, if obscure, concept. Herostratus 07:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. it seems like a classic example of a stub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.183.17 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Note that the above "Keep" is from the same person who altered a vote above. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 30 November 2006 (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.