Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu web sites


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Urdu web sites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is absolutely no indication that this topic has received coverage as a topic, thus this is far better served by having a category. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created this list, before creating this i have seen Lists of websites. If you consider category is better to serve the list of Urdu web sites, then please also delete Lists of websites and its sub lists. So first we should discuss about deletion of Lists of websites.Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, likely search term. Siuenti (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT because this list is too broad in scope to be of any value. Additionally, an indiscriminate list of Urdu websites likely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The value to anyone looking for notable Urdu-language websites is obvious. Siuenti (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category:Urdu-language websites makes this redundant, and is a far better way of achieving the same objective. utcursch &#124; talk 19:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because having sections and annotations is a bad thing? Siuenti (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sub-categories can replace sections. Articles provide more information than annotations. If a website is not notable enough to have an article, it's not notable enough to be present in that list anyway. We have got Category:Websites by language for all other languages, and they work just fine. Wikipedia is not a search engine or a directory. utcursch &#124; talk 20:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is BAD about having sections and annotations ? Siuenti (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing is bad about having sections and annotations per se. As the nominator mentioned, there is no indication that this has received coverage as a topic; and as Notecardforfree mentioned, the scope of this topic is just too broad to be useful. When you address these concerns by restricting the list to only notable websites, a category makes it redundant. Lists make sense when the number of inclusion-worthy entries is relatively small and/or when they contain information that cannot be presented in form of categories. For example, "List of Urdu websites by traffic" (restricted to top 100), "List of Urdu websites by foundation date" (restricted to those founded before 2000) or "Comparison of Urdu websites by features". Sure, you could create a table in this list with parameters such as traffic rank, foundation date, free/paid and so on. But the topic is simply too broad - there are literally thousands of Urdu websites. A list like "List of Urdu websites" would make sense if there were only 50 Urdu websites in the world, and the topic had been given coverage in reliable sources, indicating its notability. utcursch &#124; talk 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think categories can replace sections you don't understand how they work. If you think people should be forced to click through every single link to find out what makes it different from all the other links in the category, you shouldn't put yourself in charge of their navigation. Siuenti (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the List of people should contain a direct link to every biography we have on Wikipedia. utcursch &#124; talk 20:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A category is still enough for this kind of list. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this and the category as well. It's absolutely useless to group all Urdu websites. Why would anyone want to look that up? Curro2 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The name would suggest this could be helpful but the current content suggests nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 29 December 2015 (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.