Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopping e-mail abuse

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 keep. Sandstein 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping e-mail abuse

Stopping e-mail abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A tips guide masquerading as an encyclopedia article, and failing at both. Possibly it could be moved to Wikibooks Dtcdthingy 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Can you explain in more detail what exactly about this article is wrong and why those things can not be changed? I've read through WP:NOT and such, and I don't see anything that jumps out at me as making this article not worth fixing. Mind you, I don't much like the current article, I think it is too much of a jumble of stuff, but I find that to be true for most of the anti-spam articles. Wrs1864 20:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been 5 days since I posted the above comment and I confess that I'm a little disappointed that the people who have proposed deleting this article have not come forward to answer the question I asked above: "why can't this article be fixed?". Simply stating that "this is an instruction manual" does not make it so. AfD are supposed to be about discussing things to reach a consensus. If this article *can't* be fixed, then there isn't any reason to try rewriting it. If it *can* be fixed, then people need a clearer idea of what the pro-delete people find objectional. Wrs1864 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an Internet guide. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I looked at that before I posted my comments above. The "Internet Guide" part seems to be talking about websites and basically how it shouldn't be a feature list/advertising. This, however, this is a general topic. I still don't see what part of the guidelines are being violated, and more importantly, why it can't be fixed. Wrs1864 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Besides not being an Internet guide (which this is), Wikipedia is also not an instruction manual (which this also is). Simões (talk/contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it seems this is an instruction manual Chanchino 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason proposed but perhaps look to merge any particularly useful parts with other articles. 81.151.13.29 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep OK, I've thought about this and I don't think this should be deleted because I think there is substantial content there that is encyclopedic in nature. While some parts give directions, most of it is an overview of the various techniques used to stop spam, and their advantages and disadvantages. Wrs1864 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a lengthy article on a useful topic. Puppy Mill 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Antispam redirects to this page- this is essentially our antispam article, except with a very poor name. A brief re-write should fix any "not a guide" worries. --- RockMFR 05:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the "main article" off Email spam#Avoiding spam. Rename to Anti-spam efforts or somesuch and remove/rewrite inproperly-toned tips and instructions. --Justanother 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is not a how to do it manual, but an attempt to organize, and which could and should lead to more detailed sections or articles, DGG 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the diversity in approaches to dealing with spam this article may actually be more remarkable for how good it is. This is, after all, Wikipedia. That means multiple authors. The different sections are most probably written by proponents of the techniques described in the sections. Where else can you find anything that approaches the coverage of the topic of dealing with e-mail abuse (where "e-mail abuse" appearsw mostly to mean "spam.") If a section has a problem identify that section and identify the problem. Don't throw the whole thing out because some parts aren't perfect. Minasbeede 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the previous 6 or so posters pointed out: this is Wikipedia's main article on the subject, and it would would be almost scandalous if Wikipedia had no article on such an important and high-profile topic; and the article does present a lot of information. I suggest the editors should identify the target audience(s), structure the article accordingly, and improve the presentation by increasing use of "chunking" and decreasing verbosity (Web users want to scan, not read). My own thoughts on target audience(s), in descending priority order: home / small business users; owners of small Web sites (vulnerable to form email, blog, guestbook and comments spam); system administrators; people involved in anti-spam initiatives and research. In other words, visitors with the least prior knowledge get priority treatment. There should be links to additional "advanced" pages, both within and outside Wikipedia.Philcha 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. I read through the article, and I agree that it is poorly worded in some areas. It just needs to be rewritten, however; deletion implies that the topic of the article is worthless when in fact this (stopping e-mail abuse) is an important topic of research. The article has tons of good information about the different methods used, it would be criminal to delete it. Moreover, this does not look like a guide in most areas. The intent of the article is clearly encyclopedic and clearly not just for the purpose of disseminating some random guy's ideas about how he blocked spam one day at 2:00 in the afternoon because he was bored.Goldsmitharmy 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • mv to wikibooks The Fox Man of Fire 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, keeping the article and moving (copying) it to wikibooks are not mutually exclusive and is likely the proper course. The area of spam control and reduction is a large and important one and most of this article is just fine. Some of it would also be useful as a How-To guide on wikibooks. --Justanother 16:45, 6 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.