Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link exchange

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 Keep --JForget 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link exchange[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable, possibly non-neutral, and marked as such for 7 months TheBilly (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - the term is definitely in use and not self-explaining. A good article about it would be worth keeping. And I personally prefer a marked article to an empty page. --Arcanios (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - speedy keep. Are you pulling my leg? 2.3 million google hits. Also the name of a notable company that popularized the practice. Next please. Wikidemo (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't establish notability. Please try again. TheBilly (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This text has appeared in sections in many other places, including [1], [2] and [3]. I don't know what the original source is; maybe it's Wikipedia and these are unattributed copies, or there's copyright violation, but the way that each varies significantly makes me wonder what's going on. -- Mithent (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TheBilly has been working on this page for more than two years. Its been tagged for notability and sourcing for 7 months. It hasn't gotten any better. I agree that perhaps a proper article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. The burden of showing notability rests on those who wish to include the information, and this article doesn't do it. Xymmax (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deadline, and the length of time someone has been working on the article has no relevance to whether or not it should be deleted. Tagging for notability, lack of references, and/or cleanup might be warranted, but the subject is notable enough for an article. Rray (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncle G has done a lot to cleanup and improve this article since the beginning of this Afd. I see no grounds to delete it, and it really just needed a cleanup anyway IMHO. -Verdatum (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject. Other problems require editing, not deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page has been cleaned up now and looks much better. My previous comment can now be disregarded. -- Mithent (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I hope more people will watchlist this -- it's been subject to WP:OWNership attempts by an anon spammer with a trademarked variation in mind. Keeping it a general article will require vigilance. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.