Talk:Underwater Port Security System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Massive inappropriate links

  • Per the Wikipedia:External links guidelines, I have deleted many links from this article that fail to comply with the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia articles:
    • www.bookofjoe.com - this is a blog. Definitely not acceptable as a resource on Wikipedia.
    • www.stevequayle.com - deleted because this is a duplicate of another article at military.com, which was retained.
    • www.codaoctopus.com - essentially content-free home page of a vendor site. The company is mentioned in the article, so it may be acceptable if a page on this site were used as a reference to back up a claim in the article. I wouldn't have heartburn if it were added back in, though.
    • diver.net links - forum/community site, totally unacceptable for external linking.
    • kongsberg.com links - these were added by an anonymous IP address who has been spamming Kongsberg links to many other articles. I came across this article during clean-up after this spammer, so I may have been too ambitious in deleting them. In any case, commercial pages with "how to buy" links aren't appropriate. The articles may be informative, so I wouldn't mind adding one or two back in, selectively.
    • naval-technology.com links - content free link pointing to Kongsberg, and a press release. The press release could be cited as a source, perhaps.

Please discuss here before adding them back. Thanks. =Axlq (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers:
  • http://kongsberg.com links - these were added by an anonymous IP address who has been spamming Kongsberg links to many other articles. I came across this article during clean-up after this spammer, so I may have been too ambitious in deleting them. In any case, commercial pages with "how to buy" links aren't appropriate. The articles may be informative, so I wouldn't mind adding one or two back in, selectively.
  • http://naval-technology.com links
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine now. Thanks. =Axlq (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)