Talk:Virtual Link Trunking

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Propsal for deletion: Within 2 minutes after the first publication of the article it was proposed for deletion and there were at least 3 templates used as reasons for deletion. In most of these templates it also states "possible" advertisment, "possible copyedit" and "unreliable sources". IMHO you can't have and read the article, rated the two sources and then decided on the above. Just because both sources reference to one specific vendor of switches doesn't mean that they are unreliable: it means that that vendor had a day earlier showed/announced their implementation of this new technology. Also the "possible copyedit" was very quickly given, and also untrue. Although words in the articles come back in the article on Wiki doesn't mean it is a copyedit: it means that you need to use the same words to describe a technology. And because you also do need to use sources that people can check there are indeed similarities in how it is descibed: but again: that is when you describe a link protocol. When you do want to propose an article for deletion I do think you do need to base it on facts, not on assumptions. Tonkie (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as addition on above: I -on purpose- did NOT use the material published by the vendor (Dell / Force10) as sources for the article, just to prevent an issue with non-neutral sources. Other comments/complaints in the 4 r so templates are "reads like advertisment": it just handles the reasons why the industry tries to come with alternatives for existing link aggregation protcols and spanning tree protocol which are well known problems/drawbacks of those technologies which might have been OK 10 years ago but in todays non-stop data hunger there are environment where an outage of 1 minute is not acceptable. If you describe that a safety belt tries to overcome the risk of dying in a car accident doesn't make that statement an advertisment.

Also that at present only one vendor has a working implementation of a new layer 2 aggregation protocol doesn't make it advertising. As far as I know it is not a propriety protocol: but even if it would be that doesn't automatically makes it not-fit for Wikipedia: several Cisco propriety protocols have their own page on Wiki.

But first and foremost I really don't believe you can make all the statements/assumptions you make (such as unreliable sources, possible copyedit, advsertisment and non-notable, within 2 minutes after initial publication: you can't have read the article, the references mentioned and then also checked if it was an advertisment. And as also said before: just throwing up over a page of "possible" reasons for deletion: you should come with facts. Tonkie (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the page in "Proposed for deletion"[edit]

I checked with the person who nominated this page for deletion that I couldn't find it in any "Proposed for deletion" page. If the article isn't proposed for deletion the templates for that should be removed from the main-page. Tonkie (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing several templates from page[edit]

As the article has a "Proposed for Deletion" template placed on it it should also actually be on one of the Proposed for Deletion pages: but it isn't. Contacted the person who placed the PfD template 3 days ago but not a single reaction (where the PfD was placed within 2 minutes of very first initial publication of the page itself.
Also removed the CopyEdit template: the claim that content is copied / pasted from external source is not coming with any proof or example. Again: this template was placed within 2 minutes of initial placing of article and requests to clarify are not asnwered. As there is no copy.pating done in this article (see alsocomments on this above) removed the template.
If someone thinks article should be nominated for deletion please do really nominate it (not just putting the template on the page) and do come with your actual concerns and specify that on the Talk page (=on this page). Just spamming the page with a load of "maybe's" is not the way to go. Tonkie (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]