Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most visited websites

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a reposting of data from Alexa; frequently out of date anyway, as there is no regular tender of the page. (Yes, I did update it once, but I was young and foolish then...) Tregoweth 20:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, for reasons Tregoweth said. This was requested Aug 28th, but was never added to the vfd page. -Vina 06:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Y'know, people could just go to Alexa for this information. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, The difficulty of updating a page is not a valid reason for deletion. We have many pages that need regular updating but that does not mean they should be removed. See List of top-grossing movies in the United States and Canada or any current events. Wikipedia will always be more up to date than almost any printed encyclopedia. It has also long been Wikipedia policy that we should not be afraid of duplicating the work of other sites. - SimonP 07:01, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the idea that if you can find the info somewhere else, you don't need it in the encyclopedia. More generally, I don't understand the VfD frenzy, there are other ways to signal that an article needs some attention or improvement. Wow, I had to say it, now I feel better ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ephemeral data dump that will change too frequently for us to keep up-to-date. See Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Duplicate info is OK, but why bother with poorly maintained data dumps when up-to-date,current information is just a click away? Will change vote if someone will guarantee this page is updated say monthly, for ever. --Ianb 10:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect maybe? --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 10:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • delete The originator of this data does not provide it for free. Copyright infringment? KeyStroke
  • Delete: We discuss, not report, so that's one thing. We do not try to eat up the rest of the web, so that's another. Calls that there is a "VfD frenzy" or "deletionists are out of control" lead to non-majority action. This article is a report of what is readily available, in a better way, elsewhere. It is transient information that is so hard to get that people pay for it, and yet we're going to be doing it poorly and calling it encyclopedic? Forget Alexa: there are hundreds of "best of the web" sorts of sites, and most ISP's offer something similar. So we would be chasing a standard we can never reach, and we'd be duplicating other pages, and it's not very encyclopedic. Geogre 14:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed w/ Geogre and SWAdair. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (although merging with List of Websites first is acceptable). anthony (see warning) 15:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to list of websites. -Sean Curtin 18:59, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic IMO, although I'm having trouble saying exactly why. Andrewa 19:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP, it's a genuine encyclopedic article! -- Crevaner 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as KeyStroke notes, probably a copyvio. Additionally, while Alexa data is useful, I'd also guess that it's biased toward people who are willing to install a toolbar and use MSIE, thus the information is unverifiable, and, barring all of the large websites publishing their server logs for comparison, always will be. - RedWordSmith 21:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete. Why should we have an article that's redundant with Alexa? If we used some criterion other than Alexa rankings then this page might be relevant (and interesting, because you'd then have something to compare.) The article as it stands now could be replaced with a single link to [1]. --Ardonik.talk() 03:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redir to Web traffic. Davodd 07:35, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems something Alexa can do better and in a more timely way than we can. -- orthogonal 09:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a web directory, inaccurate almost by definition. I don't think it counts as a copyvio, though, because it reformats the data (only actual text, not raw collections of data, can be copyrighted AIUI). — Gwalla | Talk 01:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Gwalla said. Fuzheado | Talk 08:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Yath 10:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete An article listing most visited websites by year with a discussion to put the figures in context would be encyclopedic. Jallan 17:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - arguments above cover it - Tεxτurε 23:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. 16:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Do not trust the firm. Alexa used to offer malware/adware toolbar that will collect personal information. *drew 18:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I assume they still do -- isn't that how they get the info? Tregoweth 22:39, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Calling it "malware" is silly. They're completely up-front about what it does. — Gwalla | Talk 20:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (in its current form it does not warrant keeping) zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_visited_websites&oldid=1138097874"