Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of websites (2nd nomination)

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. Mo0[talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unmaintanble spam magnet.There are millions of websites, and tens of thousands that could be described as notable. Category:Websites is quite adequate. Previous nomination (here) was closed as no consensus, with some reservations. Ezeu 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainable, with the list containing some websites passing WP:WEB criteria and other websites that are not notable. Perhaps create a category for the notable sites as per previous afd --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we have a category for non notable websites as well? If a website isnt notable, then it shouldnt be on Wikipedia. --Ezeu 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Non-notable websites shouldn't have a category, let alone be on wikipedia. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 12:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintanble, use the category. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The very idea makes me squirm. Who's gonna maintain it? Could potentially have millions of entries. 23skidoo 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I LOLed when I saw the article title. Besides Wikipedia not being a link repository, this is too broad and unmaintainable. Ace of Sevens 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , as mentioned above: unmaintainable. PJM 12:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; reminds me of List of white people. Unmaintainable. - Liberatore(T) 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is even more unmaintainable than List of white people, as at least it takes 9 months or so to make an addition to that list. Proto||type 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Indrian 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I don't see much problems with it, but the spam magnet argument has a point. Perhaps this should be replaced with more specific lists. JIP | Talk 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. GassyGuy 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable list, useless to a researcher. The category is adequate, leave it at that.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Danielrocks123 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categories, categories, categories! TheProject 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Quite Speedy Delete as in substance a mere indiscriminate repository of internal links, even with the little tagline next to each. Absurdly unmaintainable. Jammo (SM247) 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the very least, this article is redundant, and we have a category that accomplishes the same thing. --Coredesat 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete links themselves, but is there a way to keep the interesting list of wikis? --The Saxon 02:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bang head on desk and delete. Is this a freaking joke? The epitome of WP:LC. Sandstein 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, revert, and then delete it again for good measure. Honestly. -- Xinit 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete verified spam magnet, could theoretically be expanded to nearly infinite length. Wikipedia is not a link repository per Ace of Sevens. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:53, 19 June 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.