Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 100 web sites in the United Kingdom


 * 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 the nominated article. I would expect consensus to hold the same on the similar articles, but am holding off until such a time as they are put into the deletion process themselves. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of top 100 web sites in the United Kingdom

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just a list of the top 100 websites in the UK taking directly from Alexa, with very little extra information. Any information that could be placed in this article to make it useful could be just as easily placed in Internet in the United Kingdom. Kip Kip 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also the following similar articles List of top 100 web sites in Israel, List of top 100 web sites in Japan, List of top 100 web sites in Germany, List of top 100 web sites in Italy and List of top 100 web sites in Malaysia, all created by the same user, who created this article aswell. The outcome of this discussion will almost certainly affect these articles aswell. Kip Kip 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not an Alexa mirror. erc talk/contribs 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This quarterly list should not be deleted as it provides the market structure of the Internet commerce in the UK. The next update of this list is likely to be on 1st July 2008. Also, please note that only rankings are controversial, not the visitor distribution stats per domain. Infact, it needs to be expanded to include data about market value of each domain, local market share, specialisation, et al. Hopefully, this article would become a locus of reference for other new media related articles on Wiki. This list is a composite of both horizontal and vertical market shares. It shows the significance of each web site to the UK online market as well as the significance of the UK online market to each web site.


 * I believe lists are better than long narratives in explaining the complex market structures that are still evolving in the online economy. For instance, each domain listed above used to be a specialist in atleast one segment viz advertising, search engine, etc. Google can no longer be called merely as a search engine company as they control almost 70 per cent of the online advertising market now. This list would be expanded, given time, to include UK-specific revenues, employees, market shares, specialisation, etc... It is a work in progress.


 * Perceived bias towards Alexa is because others like comscore.com, compete.com, netcraft.com, nielsen.com, hitwise.com, etc. seem to focus more on tools and time dimension but do not provide space dimension i.e. geographical distribution statistics of visitors for each domain. And they are not always free.


 * Permission from Alexa. Because Alexa Internet understands that we are an information resource, we are happy to have people refer to our data in their own work. As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information, including our charts and graphs, in your publications.


 * Also, the list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.


 * No hyperlink possible - Data on visitors from UK is not available online. So, no duplication or plagiarism of work is involved. The list collates data from two sources - compete.com and alexa.com - via permalinks to give the UK snapshot.Anwar (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not original research. It is better referred as data mining. The information about visitors was already wellknown within the industry. But it was not available for public consumption until now (for free). The list is as good as the lists for GDP. Easily maintenable as visitor trend tends to peak or stabilise when the product reaches critical mass with the public. So ranks are unlikely to change dramatically in a short timespan unless somegame-changing event or technology arrives next season.Anwar (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think data mining is allowed on Wikipedia. Although the policy doesn't mention data mining by name, the process of data mining is virtually identical to what would result as original research. As I've explained earlier, Wikipedia is meant to cite information that has already been data mined elsewhere. Remember - you cannot take A and B, and come up with C within Wikipedia. C must be produced elsewhere, and then Wikipedia can reference C as a source. Groink (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind C in this case is not a new derivative product of A and B. Instead, C is a matter of fact concurrently existing in the real world but not as wel known or obvious as A and B.Anwar (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This user is the article's creator and primary contributor. Also... what? Can you explain your comment again? erc talk/contribs 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, I think it's an encyclopedic topic and I don't think this list is a mirror or directory, although this data would change every month. There are other references for this kind of thing like Compete, ComScore, Hitwise, Nielsen//NetRatings, Netcraft, Ranking, WebpageFingerprint, and Quantcast &mdash; although I don't know how much of that data is freely viewable. I don't know if Alexa has a copyright on the information in this list, but the Alexa terms of use has a section called "Intellectual Property and Copyright Infringement Notice" that may apply to this article (the "arrangement" part in particular). I am not a laywer however. --Pixelface (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's an encyclopedic topic and after looking at the Alexa FAQ, I don't think there's any problem here. Alexa says "As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information." --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all as copyright violations. As Pixelface points out, Alexa makes a rather compelling copyright claim:Material from the Service and from any other Service owned, operated, controlled, or licensed by Alexa may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Use or modification of Alexa's intellectual property in any form, including but not limited to use on any other website or networked computer environment, without express written authorization is a violation of Alexa's copyrights and other proprietary rights and is strictly prohibited. While there is some argument for fair use in citing the Alexa rankings of individual web sites in their articles, we certainly don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to reproducing Alexa rankings en bloc like this. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out on my talk page, Alexa allows their data to be cited. However, this doesn't appear to extend to the wholesale reproduction of their data. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Alexa FAQ appears to say that citing Alexa is fine, as long as you don't attribute your own analysis to Alexa as well. --Pixelface (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think it would be fine if each of these websites' articles cited Alexa, but presenting the information in a list is not allowed? --Pixelface (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the interpretation I'm seeing here. This probably sounds strange, but it's not all that uncommon. We don't list all 500 of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, for instance, even though we mention membership on the list in articles on various songs (for instance, Let It Be (song), which is #20). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with static lists copied from other Internet-based sources isn't anything to do with copyrights and such. It is more the way in which they're being used on Wikipedia. The Internet is all about hyperlinking, which is why HTTP was nicknamed the World Wide Web (WWW). I haven't heard the WWW term being used in over ten years, so quite possibly newbies do not quite understand the concept and purpose of hyperlinking and why it is vital to Wikipedia. In short, hyperlinking allows different sites to link to each other in virtually an identical fashion to footnoting. Hyperlinking works virtually identical to an electronic spreadsheet, where each object is completely dynamic. Complete duplication of data from one site to another, such as Wikipedia, is seen by most of us as a waste of resources. Even worse, copying dynamic data to Wikipedia turns it into a series of static data. And, the original owner of the data loses control of the data. What if he made a mistake in the data released? Once Wikipedia makes a copy of the erroneous data, and a correction is made to the original source, Wikipedia then becomes out-of-date. Wikipedia uses footnoting more than any other web site. Again, the purpose of footnoting is to allow for the web of Wikipedia articles and its hyperlink sources to stay dynamic. As I indicated in my comment earlier, Wikipedia articles should be about cited interpretations of the data, and not just copying the data verbatim. Groink (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thing I wanted to add... There is absolutely no problem in having a reader jump to another web site in order to validate information he reads on Wikipedia. If the intent here is to keep the readers within Wikipedia instead of moving to other web sites like Alexa, then that ideology MUST change. We seek outside sources to validate information all the time in real-life. I don't want to hear excuses of copying data to Wikipedia for the sake of convenience. Again, stick to the hyperlinking/WWW concepts. Groink (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has all kinds of articles where the information is dynamic. One solution is to rename the article to a more specific title, such as List of most visited websites in the United Kingdom in April 2008, or just update the list when the data changes. And if you don't think Alexa is a reliable source for webtraffic information, I think there would be many people who would disagree with you. What's to interpret with this data? How it changed from last month? I don't know of anyone here arguing to keep this list on Wikipedia for the sake of convenience. Every article on Wikipedia should cite previously published information. This list is no different. --Pixelface (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - unmanageable and unmaintainable. Ranking could change hourly. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true in the case of this article; the list claims to be the top sites on a quarterly basis, which I'm assuming means the top sites over a 3 month period. Daily fluctuations in site popularity would get averaged out.  I would ask; is there something about this particular quarter that makes it article-worthy?  Are we going to have a series of "Top 100 UK Sites" for each quarter?  That seems more like the function of an almanac, not an encyclopedia.  --Bridgecross (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like you argument also. What would make this Quarter any more WP:Notable than any other. It still ends up as a delete vote from me. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are many better approaches. For example, one should write an article about the Internet trends for a given market, and then include an external link to the Alexa report as a cited source. The problem I have with these static lists is that it represents just one month. What makes April 2008 special? Sure, someone can come out and say he'll maintain the list by updating it every month. But Wikipedia editing is not about keeping a list up-to-date. Encyclopedias are about gathering data from different sources, and then turn it into information - linking to reliable sources that can prove these interpretations. It can also serve as bias data - as Alexa's data has been challenged many times, such as when Major League Baseball claims that they receive many more hits than what Alexa's data mentions. There's many other problems with this static list concept and I don't want to get into it here. Groink (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While an article on the top websites per country in a certain year may make sense, this specific article is not manageable and cannot be subject to sufficient scrutiny and control. --Abrech (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The original editor is starting to pull data from multiple sources and putting it together into one table. IMHO, this is heading towards one of Wikipedia's taboos - no original research. By gathering unlike data from multiple resources and combining the data within the Wikipedia article, the resulting table becomes unique, i.e. original research. If someone did the combining work outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia references it as a source, then that would be okay. But it does not look like the progression of this article is heading in that direction. Wikipedia should not be used for conducting research on a subject that hasn't been explored elsewhere. Groink (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing multiple sources is not synthesis. The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) cites the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook. That is not synthesis. It's only synthesis "when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." This research has already been published elsewhere, and in my opinion, it's not even necessary to cite Compete.com. --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a fan of lists, and support their inclusion on encyclopediac grounds, but this as a topic is too transitory. Top 100 by whose standards? What is Alexa says one thing but compete.com or Google or Wired or someone else reliable says something else? List of notable United Kingdom websites would be a far better and workable solution, as a thought. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I share the concerns of everyone above, and I think it would be best if we just got rid of this article. Red Phoenix  (Talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The arguments above have convinced that such an list cannot be created without personal analysis, ie. Original research. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I have also found similar lists for other countries:
 * List of top 100 web sites in Japan
 * List of top 100 web sites in Germany
 * List of top 100 web sites in Italy
 * List of top 100 web sites in Malaysia
 * List of top 100 web sites in Saudi Arabia
 * List of top 100 web sites in Iran
 * List of top 100 web sites in Turkey
 * List of top 100 web sites in France
 * List of top 100 web sites in Russia

All of these should be deleted on similar grounds. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR says "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." What unsourced analysis does this list provide? --Pixelface (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article's name is misleading. As commercially generated information, this is far from being an objective listing. If it were made clear that this is "Alexa's top 100 UK websites" perhaps the debate would be simplified. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:14, 10 April 2008 (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.