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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of social networking websites[edit]

Listcruft. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We have some categories that do this job. --Chris (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I too have used this list for a recent discussion on online social networking sites and without this list I would have been lost!!! As other folks have noted below, this list is not a list of links, but rather examples of social network sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belindalibrarian (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Keep I've found this page to be useful for research purposes on multiple occassions. In addition it seems to be well referenced and is a demonstration of the type of fresh data that can easily be put together and presented via wiki.
• Keep, this is a useful page that lets you see at a glance how many SNSes actually have a certain amount of members, as well as specifically focused services, and who is allowed to register. It's well-maintained and has a lot of good sources. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an awful lot of those sites seem to violate WP:WEB. Artw 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as a very useful and well-researched list. Czj 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; useful information, and it does do something categories can't. Spam appears to be common but speedily removed. My only concern is that while it's well maintained now, it would not be immediately obvious if that stopped being the case, at which point it would quickly become misleading; that's not a reason to delete it by any means, but I would urge the maintainers to consider ways of mitigating the problem (perhaps change the "User count" heading to something like "User count as of 2006"?) — Haeleth Talk 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Many of the references list the dates the information was gathered. Czj 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a directory, and I cannot see any useful comparitive value in what are apparently a completely disparate set of websites. If sites are notable they should have their own article and should be in an appropriate category. --pgk^(talk) 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep We have lists of instant messengers, web browsers, etc. I don't see why we shouldn't have a list of social networking sites. However, spam is a huge concern. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, like RuneScape. Or vote to prohibit anonymous editing on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having other lists is irrelevant, many of those are possibly potential deletion candidates, but regardless we are discussing the merits of this particular article not any other. --pgk^(talk) 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the nominator proposed this by appealing to existing Wikipedia consensus (i.e., WP:NOT) rather than arguing why we shouldn't have such lists. It's therefore relevant to point out the existance of large numbers of "List of" articles, since that suggests that lists aren't against this consensus.

In fact, just take a look at Category:Lists, with all the subcategories and who knows how articles. Are we debating that many or all of those lists should be deleted too, or is there something special about this article? So far the arguments put forward suggest the former, but it's probably better to raise this somewhere more general. Mdwh 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Firstly, I disagree this comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - I don't believe it comes under any of those examples listed, and disagree this is indiscriminate. Secondly, Categories do not display user counts, description/focus and registration type, so it is not true that they do the job. Thirdly, in response to Pgk, I disagree this comes under wikipedia is not a directory - that refers to excessive external links in an article, not these "Lists of Wikipedia Articles", of which there are many examples on Wikipedia. Mdwh 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this looks like a useful comparison that collects information in a form that can't be found anywhere else. Much of the information is cited. If there are non-notable sites or unverifiable claims they should be removed, but that doesn't justify deleting the article. Wmahan. 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mdwh's reasons. — getcrunk what?! 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category alone doesn't reflect member numbers or membership criteria. Stev0 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't look too indiscriminate to me. --Liface 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not indiscriminate, and attempts to be a useful list. Some citations would be useful where needed, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list seems very usefull. I propose we permanently semi-protect the article, and add a request for add for spam-filter.NickVet419 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful list. Englishrose 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand the doubts about this article, but a few of us are pretty vigilant about keeping it "discriminate" and free of linkspam. It's not easy--this and articles like it are an obvious target for promotion. · rodii · 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But add a column that specifically gives the date associated with each user count. And lock the article. JohnSmart 22 July 2006
• Keep per Ashibaka & others. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Keep there are tons of sites out there so i was thinking... Exsept those that are networking sites, thats what the list is for... If its not wikipedable-notible, keep it to just a link to the site... who says one network site is better than another. NickVet419 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove the user count column, unless all sites can be compared on an equal footing - eg. audited user figures from the same source. Otherwise it is open to inaccuracy and abuse. --Ste 13:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — I appreciate that this list is prone to spam additions but a number of us have worked hard to keep these removed. I think it's useful, any non-notable sites listed should be taken to AfD and if deleted, removed from the list _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is an informative, useful list. Doctor Bruno 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I said above, I'm all for keeping this, but perhaps we should rename this to "List of notable social networking websites" since that's what it really is. Czj 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve / fix. Lists are more useful than categories. We just need to make sure all sites listed are notable and belong in wiki, to keep it from being spammed. --George100 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this list a useful tool that I use quite frequently. Noah 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. The current list is fine as long as it's properly maintained. My concern is that it's spam fodder, so I'm wary of endorsing it. --Alan Au 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's pretty well-compiled (hence the references) and can definately see how one can make good use out of it. DrWho42 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This page collates additional information into a useful table, similarly to Comparison of instant messengers. This adds value beyond a category. —Michael Shields 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This page is awesome, and one of the ones I go to most frequently on the wiki. What's the benefit in deleting it? Please keep it - it's a topic that almost everyone is interested in now, and it is really really good information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.59.179 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. It's usefull. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manav.arya on the discussion page by mistake, and copied here. • (talk contribs) .
• Strong Delete This list seems mainly to promote social networking sites. Tried to add socialseeker.com at one point and was deleted for that very reason, but the main sites seem to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabadfish (talk • contribs)

Comment - Presumably because it's non-notable (98 Google hits, and the article was deleted). I don't see how conforming to WP:WEB is an argument against having an article! Mdwh 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep --Yunipo 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the reasons stated above, with support for some wording about notability. Oh, and that it is quite helpful in my Test-MySpace template. :) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too too many websites have been deleted from the list without a real reason , while another silly websites been listed , i consider this article as an advertisment page . Ammar 17:33, 1 December 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.