Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkMyMind

LinkMyMind was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Not notable. 0(!) google hits. Thue | talk 19:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Speedy deletion candidate for spam: straight to "see our website." Geogre 20:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My private definition of a speedy delete candidate is that the contributer created the article in bad faith. I don't think this article was created in bad faith, so I don't think it should be speedy deleted. We should give people a chance to understand why we delete their contributions, and some room to talk back; I believe that some of the angry vandals we see are angry vandals because they have not been given a reason for the deletion of their contributions. Thue | talk 21:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * When they have accounts or show evidence of looking at messages, I always drop a note to explain, very politely, what happened. So far, all my responses have been positive (but there have been few).  My point was that this article did qualify under the criteria for speedy deletion.  One of those criteria is "spam," which is an article that goes straight to the external website.  When I see a substub that says, "Is the best on the web" and then an http, I consider it spam, even if it isn't professional spamming.  The volume of these articles is so high that politeness gets awfully difficult, and allowing a luxury of time for response is nigh unto impossible.  N.b. that I did not delete the article, but only meant to say that it could have been sent to speedy. Geogre 01:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've left a comment on WorldChanging for the creator of the entry to come here and explain why he thinks it should be in Wikipedia. I think it might just be a rookie mistake. If you go to the WorldChanging page in the entry and read the comments, you'll see how he decided to make the entry. Salasks 03:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm the author of LinkMyMind on WorldChanging. I was simply hoping that this piece of my knowledge, which could also be a useful tool for everyone, may be built with the collective intelligence of everyone. It is free for anyone to modify. But I think deletion is an extreme way of dealing with my article, esp. without a plausible reason. I have written this article so that people can extract opinions from the Semantic Web. Yes, it is not 'knowledge' in the traditional sense of the word, but seeing how current the Wikipedia is in it's content, it can also be called "news-in-context". This is a new platform, and the boundaries of what is knowledge and what is garbage are fairly thin. I appeal to the readers and makers of Wikipedia to allow this idea to grow and become knowledge. - The Author

Hi, just to make it clear. I'm the one who created this entry, but I'm not The Author of the LinkMyMind idea. It may be a rookie mistake to have posted this article. I'm going to go ahead and post Rohit's blog post here because I believe that's what he intended. Since it'll make it less spammy, I'll remove the link to the blog post. Hopefully this will make everyone happy, but if either the Wikipedia editors or Rohit (the original author) don't like this article then it should be removed. -Aaron

People, I appreciate the discussion. I've modified and simplified the article. I thank Aaron for posting it here, since that's what I intended. Please see it again and expres your opinion - Rohit


 * Here is the opinion: Spam, delete. Sorry. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone please tell me why this is spam. I would appreciate that very much. I've only put up an open source project, and that too without my name attached to it.
 * I may have gone a bit too far by calling the article "spam", but it has definitely no place in an encyclopedia, as it is nothing but promotion of a concept which is not otherwise notable. - Mike Rosoft 18:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ArticleMyDelete. Nice concept you have written about, but this seems to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy (WP:WIN, item 10). You can write articles about memes that are already notable, but you must not use Wikipedia to popularize something you coined with your friend, regardless of the merits of your new proposed idea. (In its current form, this article is clearly not spam.) jni 16:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, this simply isn't the place for proposals, experiments, intellectual exercises, or whatever isn't an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 18:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm convinced. You can delete it. Thanks for sharing your views. I assume I can follow this guideline in the future? - "You can write articles about memes that are already notable"- RG
 * Well, that phrase I used does not come from any list of official policies we have here, but I believe it to be in line with our goal here; that of writing an encyclopedia. You can find more information about what's acceptable and whats not from Policies and guidelines and similar pages. jni 08:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.