Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular 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. Sandstein 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This list serves no purpose other than being hidden advertising for Alexa.

The problems with this List-article, noted in increasing order, are

• The ranking methodology used by Alexa is, at best, questionable.
• The input (data collected from websites), used as basis for producing the output (creating the the ranking list and details), is incomplete to an unknown extend.
• The items found in the list are wildly incomparable from a technical vantage point: Items are individually defined based on incoherent random decisions about what an Item is.
  - Domains and websites are not same.
  - FQDNs and partial domains are not to be merged and split at random per item.
• Any collection, or list, of websites is absolute useless from a utility perspective, when the only commonality is "popularity" (and that even if popularity was a hard metric).
  Seriously! If anyone disagree on that, then please create a "List of most popular physical objects".

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article serves its purpose, and will probably get re-created if deleted. I was of the opinion that it will probably get more viewings than List of most-followed Instagram accounts - and indeed, when I checked number of viewers, I found that List of most-followed Instagram accounts only got 52 viewers, whereas List of most popular websites got 233. Vorbee (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Sourced and a perfectly good list topic. Yes, you could find the same information elsewhere but that is not a reason to delete - WP is an encyclopaedia and so should include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above users. Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. Any problems with methodology can invite us to use alternative listings, but otherwise report the listing(s) using the best methodology. (Same goes for what counts as a site). If output is incomplete, up to our editors to update it as best as published information allows us. MB190417 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Drilling into the attempted arguments.

• [User:Vorbee] : "this article serves its purpose, ..."
  : The only purpose having been claimed this far, is its serving as advertisement for Alexa. (Which is actually reason for deletion, not keeping).
• [User:Vorbee] : "..., and [it] will probably get re-created if deleted."
  : Keeping garbage, because garbage will return if removed, isn't a great reason for avoiding to remove the garbage. It's also false, because WPAdmins can pre-block its recreation.
• [User:Vorbee] : concerning page-view comparisons.
  : Your sources for your numbers are unclear to me, so here's something I found.
  Anyway: Traffic alone isn't itself overly indicative of neither article quality nor reader satisfaction.
  Traffic origin and bounce rate for that page would really come in handy here, but I don't know where I can get them (they might not be public), so I have to settle for less.
  A qualified guess (based on WP's own previous statements on WP traffic in general) would be that the vast majority of traffic is sourced by Google.
  In also having an good idea about how search-kn00bs uses Google, then I, as an example for here, did the Google Search [most popular google websites].
  Result: Well, as far as search-intention goes (that's a big woo-woo to Google), then Google partly failed: The top ranked organic result, which I got from that search, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites (In second position came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products ).
  Saying: I'm rather suspicious towards the empirical data (page-views) possibly being used for arguing that the page is worth keeping.(I hope it's now easy to see how a high traffic volume could be an affidavit of failure, not success. )
  
• [User:JohnBlackburne] : "Sourced and a perfectly good list topic.", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does."
  : Allow me to improve that personal opinion objective argument by a little sprinkling, so to have it read: "Eminently sourced and a perfectly wonderful list topic", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this so obviously and most certainly does, beyond any doubt in the entire Universe."
  (I hope John got a sense of humour, and a lack of vanity.)
• [User:MB190417] : "Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. ..."
  : Smith, I know you're very concerned about purpose (though unclear in this specific context), and that the architect (not editors) may have a job to do, but aside from that: Your transpilation into English wasn't a great fulfilling experience for me; me being just a common reader. I'm far less competent than Mr. Anderson (aka. Neo to some).
  (Anyone not familiar with the matrix will undoubtedly here suspect me of completely having lost my marbles.)

-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A list of the most popular websites on the internet is quite encyclopedic. Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources. Dream Focus 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources." : That's either a false or a meaningless statement. -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. It also shows data from another website that measures the most popular websites, so it isn't just an Alexa advert. 344917661X (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful info for people who don't know alexa. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, not everyone knows about the Alexa ranking website, but pretty much everyone knows what wikipedia is, so people are more likely to find results here. 344917661X (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Observations, from Wikipedia Policy

• WP:NOTDIR : "Wikipedia is not a directory"

States:

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.

This "List of most popular websites" violates both 1. and 7. of "Wikipedia is not a directory".

• WP:OR : "Wikipedia:No original research"

Both Alexa and SimilarWeb (being the only sources for the list) have created their own methodology and techniques. While this undoubtedly has been unavoidable due to lack of any common standard for use, then this does not automatically mean that their methods and operations get to be regarded as acceptable or reliable. In fact, both Alexa and SimilarWeb are private enterprises, and treats their own invented methods and data as proprietary. Needless to say that: validation and verification of any original research (and products springing from such), is impossible without full disclosure (no COI-free peer-review can ever be performed without granting access to what needs reviewing).

-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in your reading of WP:NOTDIR. They are not "loosely associated" – their popularity is a key feature of many of them – which is the most popular search engine, for example, or the most popular social networking site ? – and web site ranking is one of the few ways of measuring this as they are hard to compare otherwise, especially across the Great Firewall. It’s popularity is often mentioned when Wikipedia is reported on in particular. And that is the context. If e.g. Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website then the obvious question is which are the four more popular than it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, plenty of books/news that discuss this subject, lets play in the snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE OMFG, Nominator should go talk to Bruce Willis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.1.74 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice meme :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable topic for a list. It shows two companies' statistics. Alexa is there not just because it exists or because it's perfectly accurate but because it's the company often used by secondary sources when reporting on web traffic, and we defer to secondary sources' determinations of what's noteworthy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 18 July 2018 (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.