Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatic link exchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and salt. I haven't redirected it, as there was no real consensus to (some people specifically argued not to redirect, whilst others did, and some said nothing). If you really, desperately want to redirect it, I suggest initiating a discussion on the target's talk page, and take it from there. If consensus does emerge, ask at WP:RFPP for an edit to a protected page. Cheers, Daniel 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic link exchange

Automatic link exchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Created for spam purposes, this article has been subject to multiple attempts at redirect and merge to Link exchange, resisted steadfastly by the spammer. AfD'ing as a last resort. Eleland 15:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and do not redirect - the concept only exists as a spamtool for one proprietary service. Unreferenced spammylicious. /Blaxthos 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete and do not redirect, i think article is useful and contains no spam Savweb 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)— Savweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete and do not redirect - The article really does not bring anything that cannot easily be implemented in the article on search engine optimization. In any case there is an article about link exchange in which this could be placed as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem-fanat (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I would agree that I don't see any spam issues here. The article clearly describes what automatic link exchange is in a clear and easy way for people that don't know anything about it. So I would suggest to KEEP the article. Newstas 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)— Newstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Two suspicious SPA's on the same obscure topic (which seems like a marketing concept from one company)... Closing admin might consider WP:SSP and salt. /Blaxthos 18:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, then Scrunch up, Throw away, Burn, Dispose of in landfill then Salt. Then vasectomise the creator, refuse any Social Security benefits and then neglect to send a Christmas card. Any questions? --WebHamster 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're letting the creator keep his keyboard? That's generous. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP the article, and close this thread 87.248.190.22 06:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — 87.248.190.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP THE ARTICLE and interlink it with Link Exchange - this one is the continuation on link exchange article as one of its forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.26.161.59 (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) — 217.26.161.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Less Spam, more salt. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Let the spam (er, "search engine optimization") community develop their own documentation of methods that they use to disrupt search results. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the well-justified dislike for the technique may be influencing the feelings expressed about the article. Needs sourcing, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 September 2007
  • Redirect to Link exchange as this is really a specific type of link exchange. As for the redirect being reverted, that can be dealt with through page protection I would assume. -- Whpq 22:02, 6 September 2007 (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.