Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free ___domain name

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 of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soon to rise in this ___location: a spammer's paradise, a directory of commercial links. -- Perfecto  00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- Perfecto  00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Wikipedia is NOT a link directory; better services already exist for that purpose. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-24 02:27:22Z
• Keep, users should be able to find out that this type of service exists; links can be removed if necessary. Kappa 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which you have done. Now we wait for someone to expand it into a reasonable article (e.g., discussion of marketing schemes, examples of incidents of conflict), or to merge it to web hosting ___domain name, or to put HTML links again. -- Perfecto  15:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I also see some usefulness...but it does scrape WP:NOT. PJM 03:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HorsePunchKid's comment. Also seems a bit redundant, with web hosting and free hosting already being well-established articles. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, free hosting and a free ___domain name are two entirely different things as explained in the article. Still, there's a lot of spamming at work, I suspect. Can someone check the source of the singx.com site and see if the displayed date isn't generated based on today's date. If it is, they're conning their customers. (I'm not even talking about registering somewhere else to be eligible for one. I doubt anything would be forthcoming). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as per User:PJM Sherurcij 11:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it will just be used for link spam and it isn't a significant service. -- Kjkolb 13:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keepper Mgm Stifle 15:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, though I think those of us voting to keep should promise to police this page. Jacqui^★ 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't let the spammers choose which topics we can and can not have around. --StuffOfInterest 19:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don’t see much point in this article. In essence, all it says is that you can get a ___domain name free but that in return the providers will put advertisements up on your website. Without a list of free ___domain-name providers, this article is useless, and we definitely don’t want to have such a list on the Wikipedia. •DanMS 20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It appears to me that the small amount of information in this article would be better off merged into ___domain name. Redirect if desired. •DanMS 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in here that's not already covered (better) elsewhere. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Domain name (or some other related article); doesn't seem to be enough to deserve its own article, and has a lot of risk of degenerating into a spam farm. *Dan T.* 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Domain name. Subject worthy enough of mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia. External links should appear here as long as they aren't too trivial or narrow in scope. This criterion will prevent article from turning into a spammers' portal. Good example: www.dot.tk. Let's not submit ourselves to the spam hysteria -- fear of spam is as an "irrefutable" and all-encompassing excuse, as fear of terrorism or pædophilia, for example. -- 6birc 17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant, information can be found elsewhere. MONGO 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ___domain name. Not important enough for separate mention, but should be somewhere. Superm401 | Talk 07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa. Klonimus 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa. I have copyedited the article, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph, to have a more encyclopedic tone, so it reads OK now. As for spam: If there turn out to be spam issues too difficult to dial with, THEN let's delete the article, but for now, as I said, keep. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, yet my comment to Kappa above still applies. Merge as per Dan T. -- Perfecto 15:01, 29 November 2005 (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.