Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/web directories

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 1ne 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

web directories[edit]

The articles for these four well-known web directories were speedy deleted on the 22nd under CSD A7. I've restored them and listed them here to obtain consensus about their future. - EurekaLott 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all No assertion of notability. Resolute 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These are all notable directories and shouldn't have been deleted. Rray 05:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Resolute, Rray: Notability is irrelevant. These articles fail WP:V, and have little effect but to advertise web sites (probably just by virtue of the fact that they are stubs; I doubt the intent was for them to seem like wikispam). Notability is a guideline (for now); WP:V is a policy, so notability issues (whatever their questionable validity) are ever even reached. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An assertion of notability is effectively the threshold of CSD-a7, which these articles fail miserably. Only reason I did not suggest speedy deletion is that they came from there. Regardless, notability is relevent, even if not an official policy. I can verify I exist in a way that wikipedia would accept, but an article on me would be deleted due to lack of notability. Resolute 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I am using alexa.com data to help indicate notability. All 4 of these sites have high traffic counts and a large number of Internet links to them: Traffic Rank for musicmoz.org: 38,218; Other sites that link to this site: 1,405; Online Since: 28-Aug-2001. Traffic Rank for skaffe.com; Other sites that link to this site: 1,137; Online Since: 23-Oct-2003. Traffic Rank for goguides.org: 14,392; Other sites that link to this site: 1,263; Online Since: 03-Feb-2001. Traffic Rank for gimpsy.com: 15,399; Other sites that link to this site: 1,426; Online Since: 06-Mar-2001. orlady
    • Comment - Those are all notability things, Orlady; the actual problems with these articles are largely about verifiability with reliable third-party sources. I would recommend focusing on that problem instead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - It seems to me that the main problem is being a stub - musicmoz is a unique and potentially valuable 'open source' resource (I have no vested interest), but the stub currently has no useful info. Alexa ratings simply score usage by alexa-users; no wider value. I'm not a regular wiki writer, but it seems to me that stubs are better embellished than deleted, uless there's a REASON for deletion. The other sites, for example are three of 10,000 commercial directories. Unless there's a unique aspect to their function or usage, then why list those three - but I am not saying there is or is not a unique aspect in these cases, I do not know 86.31.98.158 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - IF the articles are fixed up with regard to WP:V and WP:SPAM, then I say Keep; there isn't anything in them that smacks of WP:AUTO, WP:VANITY, or WP:NFT. Note that the GoGuides article links to a source that can be both cited and mined for additional information that might aid in article cleanup. I believe these articles can be salvaged if someone cares enough to fix them. Cleaneruppers: They have individual problems as well as what's been outlined already (MusicMoz violates the "crystal ball" clause of WP:NOT - "...aims to be a directory..."; Skaffe is based unabashedly on the site's own marketing materials, so it's not reliable - "It touts itself..." - I forget the WP: link to that one.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link that you are looking for is WP:WEB, where the PNC requires multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. Uncle G 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, fails verifiability and notability is only weakly asserted above (see WP:GOOGLE; Alexa ranks are explicitly not a part of the WP:WEB guidelines). (I should point out that I was the one who added the speedy tags in the first place.) Demiurge 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I noticed that the French Wikipedia has an article on MuzicMoz too. // Liftarn 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now Frankly I don't blame the person who speedy deleted these. They sound like WP:SPAM and provide no evidence of passing WP:WEB. The latter of those is an absolute requirement for inclusion here. MartinDK 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Looks like spammer tactics. I say we axe them all Kobra 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gimpsy and Musicmoz at least. Gimpsy is ordered by actions, not the usual DMOZ-style structure. As for Musicmoz, there aren't many detailed music databases around (the only other one I know is musicbrainz), so why not keep this one? Delete Goguides and Skaffe as they don't have much going for them. About WP:V, I'm sure you can find independent articles about all these websites. r3m0t talk 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) PS Surely there's more on List of web directories to axe. Starting Point Directory, anybody?[reply]
    • Comment - MusicMoz access online has not been an option for me for awhile. Anyone else having problems? If the site is down for the count, I will have to delete the links to it on my site as well.Yippee 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI: The AOL-owned server that hosts MusicMoz (as well as some other resources used by the Open Directory Project) was taken offline recently and currently remains offline, but it is expected to be restored when technical issues are resolved. --orlady 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gimpsy. In respect to WP:V, there are several articles that show notability of Gimpsy, like here http://www.crt.net.au/etopics/gimpy.htm and here http://www.seologic.com/guide/gimpsy.php. Goguides and Skaffe are hardly distinguishable from most other directories which are based on the ODP/DMOZ classification method. As for Musicmoz, the site was unavailable last time I checked.Mrdchc 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tawker 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I sense a certain tendency to delete the unfamiliar and the startups, and consideringthe unpredictable name of things in thie part of the world, I think its better to leave them in if they have any real existence, and Alexa is good enough as a test. If they disappear, then is the time to remove them.DGG 06:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't see how these could turn into articles that anyone would care to read. If something interesting happens to one of these projects, an article can be made then. BCoates 08:13, 30 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/web_directories&oldid=1138706226"