Talk:Link rot

Why a target?
This article clearly gets way more than the usual dose of vandalism, and the application of pending changes protection by has proven to be a prudent measure. I'm left wondering, though, why this article? I'd kinda understand the attraction if the vandals were breaking links within the article to be ironic, but most of the vandalism is not that. The subject matter is pretty dry so this isn't vandalism as a response to controversy; it isn't about a K-Pop band, a kids TV show, or Brazilian footballer, so this isn't vandalism as a natural side effect of high page views. What am I missing? Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Should rotten links simply be deleted?
There are recurring issues in Wikipedia where link rot leads to removed references, which leads to challenged content as uncited (which isn't really true), which has even led to AFDs. There doesn't seem to be any guideline or consensus discusson on this.

SOFIXIT would suggest that the solution should be to automatically find archives of rotten links, rather than the normal modus operandi of simply deleting things. But the practice of link rot -> article rot continues unabated. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 05:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you haven't yet, I recommend that you seek information on that issue at WP:LINKROT and/or its talk page. This is the talk page for the article on link rot. Sorry for the slow response! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  13:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)