Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CastleCops

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

CastleCops
This article was created by two (possibly one, as one is anonymous) known link spammers, one of which (User:Zhen-Xjell) works for the website in the article. Both editors have link spammed to this website on several articles. The article itself may be link spam. LGagnon 02:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Authors aside, this is still nn website vanity. No real proof of why it needs to be here. -mysekurity 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi'ya, thanks for the comment.  I found some time today to check out some more pages and found Websites, of course it is a proposal.  But interestingly enough, I did not know a page like this existed Google_test, which is where the previous article's Talk page took me.  Is that the page typically used in such VfD discussions? I never knew that the team effort of the Wikipedia was so precise and professional.  I'm very impressed. TIA--Paul Laudanski 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. CastleCops, along with several other security sites, was the target of SLAPP-like cease and desist activity on the part of the authors of iDownload spyware . The site is also relatively notable in the anti-spyware community; however, I don't think that makes it sufficiently notable on either account to be worth a Wikipedia article, especially if vastly larger sites like SecurityFocus aren't here too. --FreelanceWizard 10:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this does beat the five-issue webcomics but still doesn't rise to notability requirement for websites, when WP's systematic bias towards Internet/computing is considered. Dcarrano 13:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article strongly appears to be an instance of abusing Wikipedia to direct traffic (or, more likely, search engine results) to a site. --FOo 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW -- User:Zhen-Xjell signs his posts "Paul Laudanski", which is the name of the owner of the site in question, according to the WHOIS record. --FOo 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote to delete is withdrawn. I now vote Keep, as it seems clear that the editor in question is well-intentioned and not interested in spamming us. --FOo 02:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi folks, I am the author of this article (and make no attempt to hide who I am as owner of the WHOIS record for CastleCops) and was on the road when I couldn't log in to my account. I apologize if it makes me a "link spammer", however that was not my intention.  In the past I stumbled upon some articles like Proxomitron.  I knew the author and he hosted the Proxomitron forum at CC.  Since then I made minor modifications in the past at Wikipedia, but did not start really participating until recently when reading other articles about computer security.  These articles contained links to other similar sites and thought I'd enter in CC links as well.  I also noticed at least one of these similar sites had their own stub page, and figured why not put something up for CC?  I have read the policies (Deletion_policy, WP:NOT, et al) on spamming just now and Vanity versus Importance.  Certainly this discussion and outcome will give me a practical example of what is WP permissible.  In reference to the computer security articles I have modified, yes they contained links to CC, but those links were in my humble opinion noteworthy and useful.  I did add other links to Sunbelt, Spywareinfo, Microsoft, and elsewhere -- some of which were also removed by others.  I will of course oblige with whatever outcome admin decides, however, I would ask that the information I added in all the articles that were reverted be inspected for importance and value.  I have read many comments in the VfD log section make mention of global reach (Google, Alexa, et al), I also ask that admin query the same -- the results (at least in my very humble opinion) indicate there is no reason for me to "link spam".  Rather, my intent was to offer the reader as much information as possible.  Certainly, an example is Spyware where I added a "Research" section with links to live database lists for processes, startups, services, spyware/adware, et al.  I'd hate to see useful information removed (other articles I edited, and not the topic of this discussion) just because of little ole me.  Thanks for your time, I hope this answers any and all questions.  Paul Laudanski 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have gone over why your links count as link spam on both your talk page and Talk:Spyware. As for the other sites you linked to, you gave very few of them (none in equal amounts to your site's links) and, as the person who has been cleaning up the link spam, I did not delete those links. What I deleted was a bunch of additions you made in the References section of the Spyware article that looked suspect (as you added citations for them that went nowhere). -- LGagnon 03:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for your prompt reply. I have thus replied in Talk:Spyware in reference to "citations" explaining my Wiki code ignorance.  Curiously, which links in References were "suspect"?  I appreciate the passion and willingness you and anyone else has to discuss these things with me. --Paul Laudanski 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough Google hits to be notable. Should be written more neutrally though. -- RainR 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. May I ask for some suggestions on how/where to make the article more neutral?  I apologize in advance if this is not the best place to ask.--Paul Laudanski 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Major example, the last sentence in the community section. Not enough linking to other Wiki articles. Also, try to include factual information: who runs it, what software it runs, specific dates. Using O* codes in the Wiki without explaing them there may be bad form. -- RainR 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll start making adjustments. Although, anything you or anyone else sees please feel free to hop right in.  I love the whole concept of Wiki and its collaborative approach.--Paul Laudanski 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Phrases like "what is hot and what is not", "and more" usually aren't found in a neutrally written article. Some of the product namings read like name-dropping; unless you're an official site for them or they're your main focus, probably don't list them. Calling a lawsuit a SLAPP is a point of view that a lawsuit is without merit (and also if I understand correctly, no lawsuit was actually filed) -- RainR 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok thanks again.  Will go make the changes.  As to the SLAPP comment, I was working off the reply from User:FreelanceWizard, but you do have a point.  Some of those product namings we are official for, so I'll keep them?--Paul Laudanski 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keep the bit about the Cease and Desist. The coverage it got is one of the things that makes the site notable. Just word it in a neutral way.-- RainR 07:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, I'll add that back in and make an attempt right now. Thanks! --Paul Laudanski 13:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added it back and removed the SLAPP reference, rearranged the first sentence, and removed the "and more" comment at the end. How is that? TIA--Paul Laudanski 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi'ya, a thought just came to mind. I was putting this article together when I recalled the DDoS from last year that Netcraft picked up.  I don't think it has WP merit, but thought I'd ask.  Thoughts?--Paul Laudanski 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a pop-up advertisement or spam e-mail. Arevich 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi and thanks for the feedback. This VfD has taught me so much: I was reading some more of the Policies and Guidelines like Writers_rules_of_engagement, Welcome%2C_newcomers, and Wikiquette which quite amazingly are very informative and have helped me better understand WP.  Hence, I want to say that it was my good faith intention to share useful and important information rather than be viewed as advertisement or spam.  May I ask what your thoughts are exactly on how to make it a better article?  I'm currently working on User:RainR's suggestions above.--Paul Laudanski 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious vanity and advertising. --Xperment 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Well written, but no encyclopedic value; just advertising -- lucio 08:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi Lucio, question, what are your recommendations on making it have encyclopedic value?--Paul Laudanski 16:04, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.