Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep Ashibaka (tock) 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

List of social networking websites

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories; reference Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_open-content_projects and Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd nomination) Hu12 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of links
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Keep WP:LIST. Lists are appropriate to to wikipedia, including stand-alone lists. Rather than having a 50 long bullet list at the end of every article on this list for similar sites, its spun off in one link to a list. Spinning off long sections to new articles is long practice on wikipedia. This article is well watched to remove any spam. These links do not link (at least they shouldn't maybe they need checked) directly to the websites and instead link to their wikipedia articles. As for it being a directory, its not. its not different than a see also section of any other article on any other subject. The subject has simply become so large and encompassing so many articles that it is better served as a single article. Neither policy applies here.--Crossmr 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar to the last time this article was nominated for deletion I'm placing a notice on the talk pages of all related articles as time permits.--Crossmr 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, it might be best if you just let the AfD process run its course. Soliciting opinions for AfD's can be a touchy subject, and many editors and admins are very sensitive concerning the WP:CANVASS guidelines. -- Satori Son 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See this discussion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing. This is a neutral message, identical to the one which was posted last summer when this was up for deletion. Many people watch those articles, but don't watch this article, even though its deletion would effect the article. They would have to work some kind of lengthy see also list into their article were it to be deleted, or then work on a policy for which sites should be listed as see also, because if they try to artificially limit it, you're going to have people constantly trying to add to it. It would be very different if I were to say go about targeting individuals who I know always make keep statements or who I know shared my opinion. The message is neutral, bipartisan and open. So far its limited in scope, thats a vague clarification (see the table right below that discussion)--Crossmr 19:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Usually the Guidelines to follow are on the Policy page, NOT the talk page.  Votestacking, Campaigning, WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS either way it Smells like fish.--Hu12 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:AGF. I was forthcoming with my notes and didn't make any attempt to hide it. There is also a precedent for the involved pages being notified during the previous AfD to which no one objected. And if you could possibly find anything in those notes would could possibly look like any attempt at PoV or attempt to sway the vote, feel free to point it out. Oh and regardless of whether or not its on a talk page, an emerging consensus is just that. You might also want to read the section on WP:CANVASS labeled Friendly Notice. Also read the "If you've canvassed section" those guidelines for canvassing, which have wide acceptance havea ll been followed.--Crossmr 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I read WP:AGF and it states Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular list. I'm not the one soliciting for votes or participation.--Hu12 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that I was being dishonest when I left a neutral message on a few article talk pages which I openly disclosed here when I did it is you assuming bad faith. I didn't attempt to hide the messages or leave messages which would indicated I wanted people to leave comments indicating it should be kept or deleted. Consensus is built on input. The more input, the better the consensus. If you have some evidence that I made a statement or attempted to influence the way people commented here, feel free to show it. Otherwise the evidence of your assumption of bad faith is rather clear by stating that my behaviour smelled like fish.--Crossmr 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you felt the comment was criticism, it was. However it should not be attributed to malice or be imputed as bad faith because that, it was not.--Hu12 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's rather hard to read your criticism as anything but an attack, when you use the phrase "Smells like fish" and you are factually incorrect regarding the policy. Argyriou (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Smells fishy (informal- if a situation or an explanation smells fishy, it causes you to think that someone is being dishonest). WP:AGF Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. guess not--Hu12 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * guess not what? Your own quote makes it clear the phrase implies your target is not being honest, ie. acting with malice. -- Kesh 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For semantics sake, WP:AGF states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. Based on those edits any editor has the right, within policy, to question the editors intentions, without being assaulted or accused of "bad faith" and WP:AGF. Burden of intent is on the one who made the edits, not on those questioning them. "Smells like fish" is not an unwarrantable claim, see assumption. Ununorthodox and informal yes, an attack and malice, No.--Hu12 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats right and my intent was rather clear from the accompanying edit you left out which is above, where I was honest and forthcoming about the neutral and non-partisan messages I left on the talk pages of articles which would be effected by the outcome of this discussion. You cannot selectively pick edits out of a group and claim you know my intent while ignoring the one edit which did explain my intent. You can continue to assume bad faith if you like, but I was quite clear on my intent and you still haven't show even the slightest hint of anything I did that could be seen as attempting to sway the AfD in a particular direction, because there isn't anything. And as pointed out above, question doesn't mean subjected to personal attacks, which your own definition that you've given twice clearly indicates.--Crossmr 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position. I don't interperate a decision to keep or delete an article i've nominated for deletion as a bad thing or take whatever the outcome personaly. Nomination isn't a win-loose for me. Here's why, Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular lists. You cannot argue "neutrality" after sounding a partisan vote for Keep. It just Smells fishy!.--Hu12 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence your assumption of bad faith. Perhaps you cannot remain neutral in asking for input after taking a stance on an issue, but I have no such trouble and you made a bad assumption. And again you continue to make insults. You assume I wasn't being neutral, but I've challenged you several times to indicate where in the messages I left there was any degree of partisanship. As you've failed yet again, and only continue to hurl baseless insults and accusations I believe we're done here. My edits and behaviour stands on their merit. There wasn't a remote hint of partisanship in the messages I left, there was unchallenged precedent for those messages being left on related talk pages, they were completely neutral in tone, and honestly, this AfD isn't remotely contentious as not a single person has shown up to agree with you that it should be removed. In fact I'm surprised an administrator hasn't closed it on the basis of speedy keep or WP:SNOW at this point. I was also forth-right and honest in the fact that those messages asking for input per those reasons would be left, as soon as they were challenged, I ceased leaving them. You've been asked to stop assuming bad faith and to stop making personal attacks, as you've failed to do so the discussion on my part is done here.--Crossmr 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not have done any of the things you have chosen to do. However if i did it would be well before I sounded my partisan vote, for fear edits or messages after such vote may appear to fellow editors as fishy. --Hu12 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Crossmr. Unlike most lists, this one is actually well-referenced and appears to follow WP:N guidelines. The Talk page seems to be patrolled fairly well, keeping random blogs and forums out. Could probably still use a trim, but a useful resource. For once. -- Kesh 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment The most notable social networking sites have articles, "social networking websites" has better relevance as a (self-maintaining) category, instead of an external link directory/repository. --Hu12 05:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It only contains notable social networking sites (sites which already have articles here). Good for a quick comparison of the sites for determining relative notability. --- RockMFR 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, all of the articles in this list have their own wikipedia page, so the list is a perfect way of creating easy navigation for those articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, these are all valid subjects with their own Wiki pages, as already mentioned. The external links are there to help verify their existence, not ostensibly to generate traffic to those sites. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, such lists are encyclopedic and are appropriate. The list is linked only to Wikipedia pages of the site which are notable. And the list is often maintained, so there shouldn't be a big problem removing non-notable sites from the list. It is for information purposes, not for advertising. Terence Ong 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I often use wikipedia to get generic information about terms, definitions, example etc. But sometime, I need to get real life examples and this list work great for this for Social Networking. --195.115.78.114 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a central "see also" list for all of these sites. It's not a mere "repository of links" - it's a list of Wikipedia articles, giving some information about the differences between the sites (which has should be considered notable per our guidelines to have had an article created about them in the first place). What harm is it doing? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Crossmr. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, any article I actively search for has got to be useful. Found this today, and it gave me the data I needed. --163.1.165.116 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- this is not just a list of links, it is a taxonomy of of an important and rapidly growing field — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.164.192 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, again, per all above, per WP:SNOW, and also for the following reasons: This list serves more detailed information than a category could, and allows users to compare various social networking services. The article is well-sourced.  Finally, it includes only to social networking sites whose articles survive on Wikipedia, and links to the Wikipedia articles about them -- this is not an external link haven. --Czj 07:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is one of the most useful pages when I was researching social network services. Unless this list gets merged with one of the social network/network-service articles, I think it should be kept as it's valuable information. 90.192.79.203 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A legitimate and sourced list. Honbicot 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. --real _ decimic 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is extremely useful to Wikipedia; it provides a summary of verifiable information about notable articles which many people are interested in. Ashibaka (tock) 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Extremely useful; provides an up-to-date list of projects in a very important industry. JiriDonat (tock) 9:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Great resource for research.  Milchama 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal of deletion nomination consensus on Keep was established quickly, appears to have a fairly Good layout, better than most lists. I still believe this would be better served as a (self-maintaining) category, however, by watching edits to the article during this Afd, it apears to be maintaied well from the recent spam attempts. I believe that to be the most important aspect, and main reason for withdraw. keep it up!--Hu12 17:11, 19 January 2007 (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.