Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Social Networks

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Social Networks

Comparison of Social Networks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page looks spammy; a lot of the 'social networks' included do not have articles and the article provides information of little importance to an encyclopaedia. J Di 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - all the information comes from a single source (see link) that displays the information in a table similar to this article, so there's a potential WP:COPYVIO. If not a direct copyvio, this would then certainly be original research. SkerHawx 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:OR, and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - precedent for this type of list set by the deletion of ‎List of Digital Asset Management systems (Archived debate). It was generally expected that each entry must have a Wikipedia article to qualify for inclusion, similar to List of social networking websites. Because the List of DAM was an indiscriminate repository of external links (a linkfarm), and violated WP:NOT, it was deleted. I strongly feel that the same applies to this comparator list, as they are all externals. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question While we are on the subject... so you guys would be in favor of removing redlinks from this article too? -- Ben 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I think the same would apply. The article even states that the list is not necessarily complete nor up to date, and the precedent found by Ref would seem to point to its deletion as well. Just an opinion though, with no prejudice if the article or table in question actually went through a real afD. SkerHawx 01:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the basic watchword is always notability. Are each of the links listed in Web desktop truly notable? It's not enough for the List as an article itself to be notable (which is extremely doubtful if its constituent parts are not). Each component of each List should itself be notable. That's easily proven by insisting that each listed item has a standalone WP article (therefore indicating that it is notable in Wikipedia). For this reason, redlinks should always be removed, as we are trying to list items which are notable through bluelinks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question First of all, the content on that website is under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ I did not know that linking to products that don't have a page on wikipedia is wrong (my bad) but I'll try to correct that asap LucianaPavel 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction - not wrong, but still leaving oneself open to charges of linkspamming, and endangering the future of the list as a notable entity. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are hundreds if not thousands of social networking sites with new one appearing every day. This list will very quickly get out of control and be useless. Imagine that chart with 1000 entries.Ridernyc 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is just begging to be a frequent problem spot, and is unencyclopedic. Too many people like to argue about this, and I can't see any reason why this information belongs in an encyclopedia. Phasmatisnox 02:42, 8 October 2007 (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.