Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construct Deep Linking

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 Speedy delete, criterion G11 (blatant irretrievable advertisement). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construct Deep Linking

Speedy deletion criteria 11: Blatant advertising. Google for "Construct Deep Linking" -wikipedia returns precisely one (unrelated) hit. Article's prose is horrible, too.

Related policy question: I attempted to speedy this twice, but due to the administrative backlog no one looked at it and User:Weggie (not an administrator) removed it twice without rationale aside from "because I can." While obviously anyone can remove speedy requests that are clearly vandalism (suggesting Judaism be speedy deleted, for example), my impression was that good-faith speedy requests shouldn't be removed except by an administrator examining the case. Unlike the prod process, the speedy tag can be repeatedly re-added if removed. If it's just a free-for-all in removing speedy tags as well, wouldn't this lead to dumb edit wars? SnowFire 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?

There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.

Regards,

n.

--Coetzeen 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, I took the liberty of moving your comment to the bottom, where new comments go. Hope you don't mind. Secondly - your article lacks sources and seems to be talking about how this new technique is awesome and will help out websites and so on. If it wasn't done for advertising purposes than I apologize, but in that case this is original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (see Wikipedia:No original research). You said on my talk page that "It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites." Well, that's fine, but there's nothing stopping you from getting your own website and bringing this to other's attention. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a free webhost, so if this technique becomes famous and notable, THEN it can have an article. SnowFire 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete. This is a web topic that does not appear to be notable, appears to be either original research/thought or borders on advertisement since the article is primarily extolling the virtues of the subject in a biased manner. This also appears to be a conflict of interest as the author's username appears to be that of one of the originators of the topic (Nico V Coetzee -> User:Coetzeen). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user admits this is original research [1]. There is a conflict of interest: "The technique was developed by Dennis Chacon and Nico V Coetzee, USA.". The subject only generates 3 Google hits, so there's no chance of learning about it from independent sources. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any reference of any names in the article. Google does return a lot of hits about deep linking in flash:

[2] --Coetzeen 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem isn't that you said who invented the technique - that's valuable information- but rather that it was just you who did it, and there are no sources that aren't from you. Again, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. And there does in fact exist an article on deep linking; that's not under debate. (....though this is not an invitation to simply move your ideas over to the Deep Linking article, where they would likely also be deleted as not appropriate. But feel free to help improve it with verifiable information from elsewhere, though.). SnowFire 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SO, if I had to provide links of references, people talk about "deep linking" within flash this would be fine? The point I am making is that this is a fairly new technique that people are starting to use. Nowhere on wikipedia does it reference this technique. How do we get this on there then? Thank you,--Coetzeen 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, that is simply not part of Wikipedia's stated goals. Again, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia doesn't cover new techniques. And no, links to simply people talking about deep linking in general only support the deep linking article, not the CDL article. If you'd like for this information to be on the internet, then get your own website and post your ideas there; nothing is stopping you. Once CNet starts publishing an article about Construct Deep Linking and O'Reilly mentions it in a chapter in their latest book on Flash, then the article can be remade. SnowFire 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete OR + it's an advert. --Fredrick day 20:56, 8 April 2007 (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.