Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClickBank


 * 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, discounting the author's WP:ILIKEIT opinion. No prejudice to a recreation with multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ClickBank

 * — (View AfD)

Not sure how notable the company is, but the article reads like SPAM. Schutz 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just realised that this page already got deleted recently, see log, so that it could be deleted under CSD G4 (although I don't know if the previous article was similar to this one). Schutz 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability asserted ("likely similar in scale to that of Amazon.com") but no reliable sources to verify it. Google results are all advertising and counter-advertising. Demiurge 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment also delete Clickbank.com and Clickbank. Doesn't qualify for CSD G4 because the previous deletion wasn't a full AfD. Demiurge 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ~ EdBoy[c] 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Article Sanitized. Deleting this article would bias Wikipedia toward the other companies in the same market as ClickBank, namely 2Checkout, Digital River, Commission Junction, LinkShare, and Google AdSense, all of which have their own Wikipedia entry. I have deleted the middle paragraph to omit the material that was substantiated only by archival copies of the ClickBank web site. Tpbarber 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. (note that Tpbarber is the original author of ClickBank). Even if the article has been "sanitized", as you say, it still does not explain why this company is notable. As for the bias, if you believe that the other companies which you mentioned aren't notable either, they can be listed for deletion as well. Schutz 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -- Read this before firing off a delete based on the articles current content. ClickBank is a system that is in widespread usage on the Internet.  Do a google search and start sifting through the 3M+ hits.  Even aside from WP:WEB, one could argue that ClickBank needs a page based on WP:SOFTWARE.  To fill editors in, ClickBank is essentially an affilliate marketing program that would most closely mirror multi-level marketing.  You'll also notice quite a few links to get-rich-quick schemes based on ClickBank techniques.  I believe an article on ClickBank would be good to have, not merely as an article to define what this widespread product/server does, but also to allow ClickBank's critics (and critics of affilliate-marketing programs in general) an opportunity to present a balanced description of the service.  Do I think ClickBank is a great product or support what they do? (No, I have no opinion on that.)  Do I want to lead people into shaky get-rich-quick schemes?  Definitely not, but I think WP should have a balanced treatment of the subject. Here is a balanced review of ClickBank that I found while searching around:

http://www.epublishingdaily.com/feature-clickbank-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

...That presents many of the negatives of the service. Maybe this isn't the sort of information that the creator of the ClickBank article wanted, but it is good information that probably needs to be considered in an NPOV article. Tarinth 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment epublishingdaily describes itself as "a mix between a blog and a portal", seems to be self-published and not a WP:RS. Demiurge 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarilly advocating that particular reference as a definitive source supporting notability, but merely to find one of the first things that came up in a search of the zillions of links found. I think it clear that something in such widespread usage is notable per se, and that there's both considerable criticism and controversy regaring the product--certainly enough to justify an entry here. Tarinth 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick trip to amazon.com and a search for "clickbank" turns up a few dozen books that include information on using ClickBank. Yes, a lot of these are self-published vanity works such as "How to Become Wealthy Selling Informational Products on the Internet", but then you'll also find some books such as "Build a Web Site for Dummies." I don't think anyone would claim the For Dummies series doesn't count as WP:RS: http://www.amazon.com/Building-Site-Dummies-David-Crowder/dp/0764571443/sr=8-8/qid=1167431620/ref=sr_1_8/102-9031080-3452160?ie=UTF8&s=books

Sifting through the Web simply turns up a huge number of links, some in the get-rich-quick category, some more balanced:

A few others: http://www.profitpapers.com/reviews/clickbank-review.php http://business-reviews.com/business_opportunities/clickbank.php http://moneymakingbusiness.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/clickbank-review-part-2/

Some critical reviews/links: http://scamsreviewer.com/blog/?s=clickbank http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/08/23/affiliate-programs-clickbank/

Essentially I think it is clear that there's so much out there on this subject that a good article on this company/service seems possible and inevitable.

I am in no way affilliated with ClickBank or their products, and I've never even used their products. But I *am* very familiar with Web technologies and companies, and I was incredulous when I saw this come up for deletion given that I'd heard their name so many times. I'm just against deleting articles off the cuff simply because the first version of them isn't that great. Tarinth 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability rarely matters as much as people seem to think it does. What matters is the information in an good article on the thing would be given in reliable sources, and I do not believe that. -Amarkov blahedits 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? If it's notable, it may come up in a discussion, and if I then don't know what it is, I reach for an encyclopedia in the hope to find some truthful information on the subject. As long as it's truthful, and gives me some idea what it is about, it's still much better than nothing. 85.176.180.216 21:52, 3 January 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.