Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LINK in INK


 * 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 Delete. - Bobet 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LINK in INK
I'm nominating this because I have no idea what it is. No, seriously, I can't figure out what it's trying to say, and the site it references has only one link - a link back to this Wikipedia article. Go figure. FCYTravis 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry makes sense if you break it down. It refers to Permanent URL's (PURLS), the handle system (handle.net), and the DOI system (doi.org). These are systems for referring people to content in a manner that protects against broken or expired links. If you've ever bookmarked a page that can no longer be found, then you can imagine the need for a permanent URL that hunts down the current location of the content contained within the URL. A Link in Ink, like a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), is a unique URN that points to a directory. This directory is maintained by web publishers who update the associations between DOIs, e.g., and their associated URLS. I wouldn't be so quick to delete this. I've seen a printed flyer with Links in Ink embedded in the copy. These links have referred me to online resources.
 * Can you cite sources that have used this system? Given that the associated Web page is completely contentless (how does one even create a Link in Ink? There's no information available) I would suggest that this Wikipedia page is at best, premature. FCYTravis 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonnotable. A google search for "link in ink" (in quotes) returns only 71 results, and only three of the first ten seem to have anything resembling relevance to what's described in the article. Michael Ralston 07:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Does a lack of of google search results mean that the article is of no use? I'm not convinced that popularity-according-to-google should measure the merit of an wiki article. There is now an example of an implementation of the system. I think one idea would be to inform that the technology is purported by LINKinINK.com
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Near non-existent google presence, suggests non-notable product or service. Weregerbil 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not asserted.  Likely WP:VSCA.  From their nearly empty website: "For more information, see: Our Wiki page"... that about seals the deal. (Cart before the horse?) -- Kinu  t /c  07:46, 24 February 2006 (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.