Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trackback Submitter

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. W.marsh 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trackback Submitter

Trackback Submitter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tagged as speed y G11 (spam) but the article is not obviously spam, it includes a link to a very critical article http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=3829 - on the other hand, that article shows why a Google test is not going to be valid for this product, and no other evidence of significance is included. Does this pass WP:SOFTWARE? It does nmot look like it to me. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only one mention (do we have an article on every computer that is reviewed in a PC mag?), and not even a very notable journal. Not a db-spam, but a deletion nonetheless. yandman 14:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wasn't very sure about the original speedy nomination either. By the way the 'critical article' you mentioned is already listed in spam blogs (or somewehre similar, I know I've seen it before). Anyway, this is non-notable piece of spam payware. --timecop 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speedy, not notable, self promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for useless products and services Adamn 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) shoa
• Weak Keep - I found the information interesting. It at least has some sources, I have seen many many worse articles out there. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this information can go into splogs or comment spam or trackback spam, where as in this article it's advertising a commercial spam product. --timecop 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section to the trackback spam about this software, citing the searchenginejournal link as a reference. Now this can be safely deleted :) --timecop 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that sounds about right. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - if the content was moved somehwere more approriate, I am all for deleting it now. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not blatant spam, but its existence reads as promotional. Merely being interesting and better than other articles is no excuse. Chris cheese whine 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason why this page should exist. - Abscissa 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Chris. --Jeff 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per chris. Hello32020 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotional spam. Fails WP:CORP  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alkivar. BJ^Talk 10:26, 9 December 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.