Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of websites


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Numerically, I have 19d-10k, which is fractionally below the two-thirds level, and I don't think any of the editors need discounting. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to give more weight to WP:NOT than to "oh but we have other articles [that are just as bad/good]". Driving everything down to the lowest level of quality is not the way to conduct an AfD debate. We should seek to haul standards up, not search for the weakest article and drive standards down towards to it. Anyway, that's too personal a reason to bend the threshold here, so I'll call a very close no consensus. If this is renominated in future, I do not think this AfD serves as a "keep because was kept before" argument. -Splash talk 02:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

List of websites
Unmaintanble. There are millions of websites out there and at least a few thousand notable ones Delete --JAranda &#124; watz sup 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep we have Lists of films, List of books, List of albums, and even List of people. All of those are vastly longer, and are well maintained. - SimonP 20:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep "This is a list of websites that are famous, notable, or extremely popular and 'for which Wikipedia articles exist." Wikipedia is not a link farm, but it can and should list the most common/popular/notable websites that have articles in wikipedia. If you want to make and apply a new category called Category:Notable websites that would be ok with me but listing them on this page is easier to adjuducate when spammers try to post non-notable sites. MPS 20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * and you could subcat things like Category: Search engine websites and Category:Social networking websites. You could also make one called Category:Possible spam websites and then it would be easier to search for them. MPS 05:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify: My vote is still Keep. People can do the category thing if they want another way to look at websites, tbu this list has cash value and I think it should stay. Isn't there some policy like redundancy is good? MPS 15:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory... and, what is the purpose of the page. Would anyone even use that? -- WB 22:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree that if the list sticks to websites that are notable and already have coverage on Wikipedia, then it might be useful, and certainly within Wikipedia guidelines. However, I know that's not how it's going to go -- this page will get spammed with every website address known to man. Also, I am not sure if a list form will add anything that isn't in an article. Therefore, I'll say delete and create category. (That is, if there isn't a category already. I haven't been able to find one in the 3 minutes I spent looking.) --Jacquelyn Marie 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I have changed my vote to a weak keep due to the precedent that has been outlined below; I still suggest that a category be created, however, because if it does turn out that this becomes a spammer's paradise, then we have something to fall back upon. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should users have to guess what websites are about? Kappa 23:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, like list of films etc. Kappa 23:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and create category (if necessary) per Jacquelyn. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with those above me. If we have lists for films, books, etc., there's no reason why we shouldn't have a list of websites. Keep in mind that this is not a list of every web site out there. It is a list of those that have Wikipedia articles already, which is much smaller and more maintainable. --Cswrye 17:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make one more attempt to justify why this page should be kept. While I do think that categories are great, they are not always a substitute for a listing page. For an example, I will point out the list of dances. This page simply lists each dance under certain headings with a short description of each one. If I want to see a list of dances, I can simply go to this page. This cannot be done in the category system. Because of the many subcategories that exist and branch off mulitiple times, I would have to go through many different pages to really see a list of all of the dances. Seeing them all at once is much more convenient. Furthermore, it is nice to be able to see a short description of a topic before going to the page. Wikipedia can be slow sometimes, and traveling from topic to topic can be annoying. A list would prevent that. Finally, I don't think that spam would be a major problem. This list is already quite extensive, and I haven't seen any spam on it yet. Even if there were, many pages get spammed routinely, and they have all been handled pretty well. I don't think that spam is a satisfactory argument against this until it makes the page virtually unusable. I know that I have found this list to be quite helpful, and I would be disappointed to see it go. --Cswrye 17:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, although I do think that this page should be kept, I agree that a category should be created either way. --Cswrye 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and create category. Although the abovementioned lists are good for wikipedia, I just have a bad feeling that this list is going to become very unmaintainable, very quickly. As soon as the more unscrupulous members of the Wikipedia community find this list, every man and his dog will be putting up personal websites, spamming links, etc, and it is going to be the mother of all headaches to keep under control. Also, every website on this list will also have a category on it, and when the non-notable websites are deleted, the redlink will remain, making it easier for someone else to come along and do the same. At least with a category, once an article is deleted, the link int the category will likewise vanish. Saberwyn 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; since an article is required to be listed, categories will be fine. tregoweth  00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should users have to guess what websites are about?
 * If the website is notable enough, users shouldn't need to guess what the website is about. Saberwyn 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, we should only have articles for websites that everyone has heard of. Kappa 17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete & create category as per Jacquelyn Marie. As for Lists of films, List of books, List of albums, List of people, etc.; they have categories already &mdash; by date, by occupation, etc. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-18 T 01:13:23 Z
 * Delete and categorize If a reader comes to WP looking for a specific site, they'll search for that site. If a website isn't notable enough to have its own article, should it really be in a list? Those sites that do have their own article should be placed in a category. Carbonite | Talk 02:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize This list would be an absolute nightmare to maintain. You might as well hang a sign on it that says "Spam me!". Denni &#9775; 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article like this deserves a separate wiki.  freshgavin TALK 05:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly unmaintainable. Categorization is fine, hopefully by hierarchical categories. MCB 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The list has external links to the websites, something which a category cannot do, although it is somewhat questionable if we want all those links. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that categorisation presents no problem. Dottore So 09:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists like this are magnets for vandals who love to add their own sites to these lists. It then encourages them to write articles on them. AFD and CSD are overloaded enough without such encouragement. The potential harm this does outweighs any good (and I can't even imagine much what that would be). -R. fiend 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: lists and categories are complementary. Categories are self-maintaining, updating when articles are added to or removed from them; they are incapable of displaying more than a list of article titles. Lists must be maintained manually; however as described above, they are capable of displaying explanatory text next to each entry, and are amenable to more flexible styles of display. Lists are not confined to simply sorting entries alphanumerically: entries can be grouped according to appropriate subject areas. This must be written down somewhere, but I can't recall right now… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's discussed at Categories, lists, and series boxes. Kappa 17:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. But rename/redirect to List of popular websites. -Andrew 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category:Websites and its children are better suited for this. Flowerparty ■ 06:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WAY too broad, and way too hard to navigate and/or load if it's to be anywhere near complete: how many pages would be required for the poor user to click through? And as for Kappa's weird hypothetical user who must know before clicking the article link, it's far easier just to click and find out than to drill through page after page for a 3-word description. --Calton | Talk 06:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So it's easier to click on page after page of links instead of reading 3 word descriptions? Kappa 09:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with those above me. I think many people have got confused about the purpose of the page. Its not about listing down all the websites, but listing only those for which there is dedicated Wiki page entry. Also, if we have lists for films, books, etc., there's no reason why we shouldn't have a list of websites. Again, keep in mind that this is not a list of every web site out there. It is a list of those that have Wikipedia articles already, which is much smaller and more maintainable. -- Ninad 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ninad. Very broad, but seems to have precedents. -- SCZenz 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Saberwyn. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Agree with Simon and Phil. A very useful list. Academic Challenger 07:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT a web directory. Unmaintainble and liable to be POV. Tony Bruguier 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the WP:NOT arguments. Make a category if you want. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks the additional categorization that makes the film and other lists useful- in the VfD for list of films, it was pointed out that the category system didn't yet have all of these features, but at the moment this list doesn't either. Category is more maintainable and easier to police. --Clay Collier 22:34, 25 October 2005 (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.