Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of employment websites

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of employment websites

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surely this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed Category:employment websites exists anyway. The first version of this was strangely chatty and represented a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is: it's been since pruned to just a raw list. Morwen (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I wouldn't oppose creation of a new list. Precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination) suggests it's a suitable topic, and if it's limited to sites that Wikipedia has articles about, it's an index of content and doesn't fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would recommend waiting for further development of the list, as it was created recently, but the descriptions there (now removed) appear to have been copied from pcmag.com[1] and there's no evidence of permission. Peter James (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons I've mentioned, with revision deletion of the content that has been removed. Peter James (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It fits none of the sections in WP:NOTDIR, so I fail to understand the nominator rationale, nor I see anywhere else it could fails policy/guidelines. All entries are bluelinks. I pruned the first version and I wanted to improve it to bring it close to List of social networking websites or other analogous lists. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please actually read WP:NOTDIR, which states at the beginning that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." The way to cure a NOTDIR problem with a list of websites is to remove all the non-notable entries; only if there are too few or if the very organizing concept of the list is somehow flawed would a list of notable websites be deleted. There are 72 articles on different employment websites in Category:Employment websites, more than enough to justify a list. So keep per WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and (ironically) NOTDIR as a standard index of articles. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, per WP:NOTDIR, "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content"; This article is not in violation of WP:NOTDIR, because it functions as an index of Wikipedia content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the category, as this page essentially is a category page; unlike the List of social networking websites, this page has practically no information besides an enumeration. ModelUN (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "merging" a list with a category. And regarding your comparison to the other list, why do you think this list can't be annotated as well? postdlf (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list only shows bluelinks of similar articles so its a perfectly valid list article. Additional information could be written about each entry. Perhaps even a chart listing their creation date, how many people use them, their Alexa traffic rating, etc. Dream Focus 15:36, 20 July 2013 (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.