Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional link

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. Espresso Addict 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional link

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

This page seems to be an explanation of a long algorithm used by a proprietary music recommendation system. I would have speedied it under WP:CSD#G12 but I can't understand enough about it to know where the advertising for the Qbox.com ends and the algorithm begins, or vice versa. For an online service or system, there's precious little online via Google or Yahoo about it or the company who has it. Qbox returns several thousand hits, but Qbox and "emotional link" return less than 20, most of which are in (I think) Japanese. On top of that, the article has only one source, a journal article at the bottom of the page.

Is this a major scientific concept about which I'm unaware, is it too obscure for the encyclopedia, is it advertising for the company, or is it some combination of the three? -- KrakatoaKatie 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• hang on www.qbox.com now works. It seems they are now open for service. Upon reading the Wikipedia entry on Emotional Link, I don't think this constitutes an abuse of the Wikipedia policy -- i.e., this does not look like a case of blatant commercial advertising for Qbox. For fair comparison, I also examined the entry for PageRank. There's certainly more mentioning of Google in that article. Wikipedia users should be free to determine whether the Emotional Link algorithm is worth people's time and effort to understand, but I don't think deleting this entry is appropriate.

Tkoom 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can't tell if it's a copyvio or completely original research. Either way, an encyclopaedic article about the subject will have to wait until such time as multiple neutral indepedent sources are found discussing the subject and establishing its notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The "single reference" at the bottom of the page is the research paper on which Google was founded, and is not a source for the article. The article is about the innards of a non-notable website which appears to have nothing in the way of third-party coverage. The website doesn't publish the details of this algorithm, so it's essentially non-verifiable original research on a non-notable topic. Thomjakobsen 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable algorithm that hides what amounts to spam for a non-notable music recommendation service. humblefool® 04:53, 5 October 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.