Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of website monitoring tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fluxbot (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 1 October 2016 ((Task6) HTML cleanup of Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 14:24, 1 October 2016 by Fluxbot (talk | contribs) ((Task6) HTML cleanup of Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags)
- 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.
- Comparison of website monitoring tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, Pages consisting of redlinks are unhelpful to readers. Repositories of Red link articles do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while I think that almost all of the rationale for this deletion is only cause to edit the article, the first reason is sufficient: Article fails WP:NOT. It's certainly helpful, but it's not really WP's thing. Describing what a Web site monitoring tool is would be reasonable. Perhaps even listing some articles comparing them from the popular trade press would be fine, but such comparisons are ephemeral and their criteria subjective. Not encyclopedic. -Miskaton (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just an attempt to establish a reason to spam Wikipedia with a bunch of "website monitoring tools". On a page like List of social networking websites editors regularly have to revert red-link additions of non-notable sites with the edit summary including write the article first. The list in this AFD is almost empty except for red links to non-notable companies who individually fail WP:CORP. This list fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] - 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.