Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of news aggregators

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of news aggregators[edit]

Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A collection of external links per WP:NOT. --Blue520 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Normally I vote against the lists I find on AfD. But this list has some value because an attempt has been made to classify the news aggregators into various categories. So it isn't just an indiscriminate list. It's a useful supplement to the news aggregators article. If some of the links could be wikified to reduce the linkspamming, then I would vote for a stronger keep. I see the links as a problem, but not the list itself. Slowmover 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the list has been sorted or not, it remains a violation of Wikipedia policy to have an article that is a mere collection of external links. If the article was a list of internal articles about agregators, such as List of news web sites, that would be fine. As it is, there is no way to guess at which sites are worthy of inclusion and which were added as spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. But I don't think this is a "mere collection of external links". This is an annotated list, with additional information like capabilities and compatibility of the aggregators. While most of the aggregators have external links, I counted 13 wikilinks without external links, which convinces me the author has tried to find internal links where possible and is not intentionally spamlinking. Someone put a lot of work into this list.Slowmover 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more point. The example you gave of a "good" list, List of news web sites, is not useful at all. This list can be replaced by a category because all the links are just pointers to wiki articles, and there is no additional content that expands on the meaning of the list. If it was deleted, no information would be lost. So its a good candidate for deletion/replacement with a category. That cannot be said of the article which is the subject of this debate. Slowmover 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This list serves as a honeypot for linkspammers who would otherwise swarm all over Aggregator. I say them them have free reign over this worthless article so that other articles can live freely.—thames 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, clear violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge/delete - merge only the most prominent aggregators to a new section that lists some examples in Aggregator. Delete rest. --P199 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who come to this page probably are looking for an aggregator to use, as opposed to literally wanting a list of all news aggregators, so merging prominent aggregators gives users what they want while removing cruft from WP. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge/delete - same as above. -- Noah Tye 09:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If there is a Web site out there with pretty much the same info (or better), I vote to put a link to it on the News Aggregators article and delete this one. If there were only a few, I wouldn't mind keeping it. But a big list which is incomplete is sort of silly. Beetle B. 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: "No encyclopedic content whatsoever" is a lie, just read the entries and they give a small description of the programs (which is good for comparing the options to others. The article could and should be strengthened with more detailed feature information. But if you have to lie in order to support an argument, then a keep is absolutely necessary. --MateoP 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. At worst it should be a collection of internal links, but then that's what a category is for, isn't it? Fagstein 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the list is useful and does provide enough information. If you think it doesn't have enough information why don't you try adding it a few more lines to make it richer? Cankoklu 12:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable speedy as only content is external links. Stifle 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seconded: A collection of external links per WP:NOT. Same must be said about List of Podcatchers btw. --Gego 18:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete - nothing but a collection of external link spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as I deliberately searched for it, so it might be definitely useful --Angelo 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.