Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of popular Internet services

:{{la|Timeline of popular Internet services}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_popular_Internet_services Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Timeline of popular Internet services}})

Non-neutral by definition. damiens.rf 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• As an indication of how non-neutral this is I note that Baidu, which must be either the most popular Internet service or very close to being so, doesn't even get a mention. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• ? This is Wikipedia. It's not a static document. If something is missing, add it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Note that I didn't preface my comment with a bolded "delete", because I wasn't offering this as a reason for deletion. It was more shorthand for a sense that the content of the article doesn't match the title, so if this is kept a decision needs to be made about whether it should be edited so that the content matches the title, which would involve adding stuff about extremely popular services such as Baidu and Yandex, or whether it should be renamed to a title that reflects the content, something like Timeline of popular Internet services in anglophone countries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|86.17.222.157}} These services were simply missing until now. Crucial information is missing on many articles so please just go ahead and add it. If you're asking for a reason why they've been missing until now it's probably because most of the page's editors are from anglophone countries. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not quite sure I understand the nomination. Are you saying that if it were renamed to be e.g. Timeline of websites in Alexa's top 100, it would be a workable list? In other words, I presume the problem is the "popular" part? Thing is -- and this is another aspect to this discussion -- there's already a timeline like this built into History of the Internet as "Examples of popular Internet services". So I guess the first question is whether that's problematic (I suspect there's a reasonable way to set inclusion criteria), and second is whether it should have its own stand-alone timeline. I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and unclear criteria for inclusion -- i.e. who determines which service was popular? Besides, History of the Internet already provides a similar timeline, so this is redundant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - please create a new talk page entry about establishing specific inclusion criteria if you think that's needed here instead of an AfD: notability of the topic and public interest is pretty high - there's no reason to delete the article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Fixuture}} Not to try to change your mind, but since it's relevant to the deletion discussion, how would you work the criteria for inclusion? (I.e. what's "popular"?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Rhododendrites}} That would be the matter of that talk page entry - I'd suggest something like "Internet services with over 20 million monthly (or registered?) users" (at one point in their lifetime; reliably sourced). --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Fixuture}} I think it would be possible to do, but the ability to create such an inclusion criteria is relevant to deletion. For example, saying "20 million" defines it with WP:OR. It would have to be based on reliably sourced definitions of "popular"... and sources don't agree on that sort of thing. That's why I floated the idea of reframing it in more specific terms (I used Alexa, but anything with a clear bar that doesn't require OR would work). I've not yet looked to see what they used in the history of the Internet article... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Rhododendrites}} Well then I'd say at worst case it would be needed to have it moved - e.g. to "Timeline of Internet services with over 20 million monthly users" or so. But that's very inconvenient - instead the lead could simply state the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Update: Oh, hm. From the looks of it, there was no real discussion about that outline. It was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Internet&diff=425275095&oldid=425266014 here] in 2011, a few entries were added between then and 2013, when it was split off to Template:Internet history timeline. {{u|Damiens.rf}} tagged it as pov yesterday, but otherwise I'm not seeing much by way of discussion, so who knows. As an aside, Damiens, part of the usage guidelines for the pov template requires opening a discussion section the tag points to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this is inherently original research. Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100? If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet, as above. I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment {{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}}

::{{Gt| Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100?}}

::Per discussion. Just not here but on the page's talk page.

::{{Gt|If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet}}

::How that? The history of the Internet is a history of the infrastructure, technology and general usage and not the specific content and services on it.

::{{Gt|I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy.}}

::I don't agree on that. At worst case the name of the article would need to be changed. But imo that's nitpicking / inconvenient.

::--Fixuture (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This is patent original research. There is no way to decide what is "popular" without a bit lot of OR. I see this list as totally unencyclopeadic and considering that the information already exists in other forms, I will go with a delete. No point in wasting time to find out a criteria for inclusion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Lemongirl942}} There are multiple ways how "popular" can be bound to specific inclusion criteria for this article. Also one could rename the article, removing "popular". In what other forms does this information exist in the extent & openness of the article in subject? I think a timeline of the content & services on the Internet is very useful and important info.--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:::"Popular" is an unencyclopaedic word with no clear definitions. If someone can find a scholarly definition of "popular Internet service" I would be glad to keep the article. But I doubt anyone has ever found something like that in the entire history of Wikipedia and . If we define it ourselves, it will be OR. Basically I don't see any way this is useful for an encyclopaedia. There is no way to solve this by "editing" either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Per my comments above. I was looking for an indication this could be salvaged, but nobody has suggested a way to do so here or on the talk page where I opened a discussion. I'll open the same discussion at history of the Internet and would not be opposed to it being spun off in the future if an appropriate inclusion criteria can be determined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Well it hasn't been long since you started the discussion. Also the suggestions you made there seem good enough - why not use one or multiple of them? I'm wondering why you'd vote delete despite having made useful suggestions for the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Fixuture}} The point of that thread is to figure out what the list was to be based on (after the discussion was initially closed as no consensus). I didn't have a good answer -- all of those I listed are problematic in various ways -- and nobody suggested something better. I've now opened a similar thread at Talk:History of the Internet. If it can be worked out for the purpose of that sidebar, then I wouldn't be opposed to a stand-aloen article in the future. For now, however, we have a pile of OR and no inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, or maybe WP:TNT. I think the concept is a valid basis for an article, and History of the Internet is such a broad topic (and long article), this could easily be spun off as a useful an interesting article on its own. But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined. For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they? I don't know, but I'd like to have some better way to determine that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|RoySmith}}

::{{Gt|For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they?}}

::Why do they leave you with that impression? The article is just about new services not about everything happening on the Internet. The list is incomplete but more or less these are the three most important new services/websites that were initiated in 2012.

::{{Gt|But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined.}}

::As said earlier, the inclusion criteria can still get defined better on the talk page.

::--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep this boils down to two issues: 1) WP:OR and 2) the content of the article. To me, the OR argument doesn't hold water because all of this information is searchable and retrievable through various sources. I find it highly unlikely that individual editors are using this as the source of their original research. As for the content of the article, those are all editing issues and not deletion issues. Therefore, I say we keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• ?? What "information" are you talking about that's searchable and retrievable through various sources? The existence of websites with these names? What exactly determines inclusion here, and where can we "search and retrieve" information about that sense of "popular"? If there's no clear inclusion criteria, then it's WP:OR by definition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Based on your comment, I don't believe you have a grasp on what WP:OR covers. Not having a clear inclusion criteria has nothing to do with Original Research. Not having a clear inclusion criteria covers decisions about specific content of the topic. This is a deletion review where we discuss the deletion or retention of the entire article, not the specific contents of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Of course it does, when a title includes a word like "popular" that requires editors to apply their own interpretation. Not having a clear inclusion criteria means editors apply their own subjective interpretations when determining what should be on the list. The content of a list (the items it includes) is subject to WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. and therefore inclusion criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." When an editor decides for him/herself what "popular" means rather than basing it on a clear inclusion criteria (one that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources), that's original research. It's possible for a list to have no clear inclusion criteria and not have obvious OR problems, sure, but not when the title of the list includes a word like "popular", because without defining that term with reliable sources, editors must use original research in order to add to the list. Whether it be going by one's own personal definition of "popular" or choosing for themselves a sourced definition. At the most basic level, you could say that if every entry were sourced to something calling it "popular", then sure, you could say there's no OR -- it would just be utterly indiscriminate in its inconsistency. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Editing can solve that issue. It's not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Editing cannot solve this issue. The issue is that there is no unambiguous definition of the word popular. If the material in the article is valuable, the article can always be userfied/draftified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Selecting a different wording (Top 5 Internet Services by year, History of Internet Services, etc.) would solve that and word selection is indeed "editing" --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• "Top 5" according to whom? --damiens.rf 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• oh this is just speculation here but maybe the "top 5" according to search engine rank or ranked by revenue or customer count or service footprint by any one of a number of third party reliable sources that provide ongoing industry reviews. Or maybe not "top 5" but some other measure that is specific. In any event, that is word selection which is decidedly an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a summary, not OR. We are capable of determining by discussion what items should be included in such a list. Summaries suchas this are an appropriate and accepted type of article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|DGG}} what is it summarizing? We have a list of companies united by them being "popular", with the list duplicated in an article sidebar and a stand alone timeline, neither of which have ever defined "popular" or set criteria for what qualifies as "popular" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Perhaps it would be better to change the title of the article, and refocus. It is more a collection of services that acquired most of the market share in their own area, and that has been changing over time. Neutrality of this topic is going to be always an issue, but it is nevertheless a useful article. If necessary discuss inclusion criteria on the talk page.--Micru (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• I have no objection to changing the title and being more specific in its criteria. In order to successfully do that we should close the AFD as keep so enthusiastic editors can discuss and edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• You (and some other editors above) are basically saying "Keep, as long as we change its title and its contents.". Mindblowing.--damiens.rf 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Not exactly. I'm saying to keep it first. Then if consensus wants to change the title that's one avenue to a final solution.--19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Even if it is OR, it is still useful information. Maybe the title should be changed to Timeline of Internet services so that way we don't get arguments about what is "popular". Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• WP:NOT#OR is a policy. As for your second suggestion, if we convert it to a timeline of all internet services, it would become a directory listing. This is not allowed per WP:NOTDIR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Since this is not original research, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – don't we have enough of these already? Between the Timeline of web browsers, List of Internet pioneers, more specific articles like List of virtual communities with more than 100 million users, History of blogging, and history of webcomics, and categories like :Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎, I'd want to see a pretty well-established list here or none at all. The topic ("internet services") is incredibly general. This timeline includes technologies, websites, and web applications, without distinction. "Popular" is even vaguer. Was Keenspot popular enough to be listed? The service was influential and used by many people, but I think everyone here would agree it doesn't even come near the likes of Yahoo!. How about Outlook.com? Used by millions, but so are plenty of other services. Honestly, I don't think this list can serve any purpose other than being a popularity contest. Can I add Marktplaats.nl? It's used by millions of people, so that counts as popular, right? ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment {{ping|Maplestrip}} None of these captures what this list is about. :Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎ includes every Internet property and not just the popular ones and the other articles are about specific types of Internet services. It's supposed to be that general - especially as there are new types of Internet websites/services/... getting established (innovation and novelties per year is a main point of the article). For the definition of "popular" please see the previous discussion - let's decide upon inclusion criteria on its talk page. Keenspot seems to have been several orders of magnitude beneath the other items of the list in terms of popularity - it may have been used by many people interested in webcomics which aren't that many. I think this list has been going fine until now so why should that change just now...and there is the issue of the missing inclusion criteria - but that's not a point for deleting the article but instead requires us to simply define some on the talk page. --Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not just worried about the lack of inclusion criteria, however, but I am also audited about the actual scope. Are there even sources specifically listing or discussing major "Internet services"? If so, what sources would list web browsers and websites side-by-side? The vagueness of "internet services" worries me a lot. I would prefer a timeline of popular Internet technologies and a timeline of popular websites. I'm sure we already have a list of best-sold mobile apps (I'm on mobile right now, so checking is hard) (EDIT: like this?). These kind of things are much better defined and result in a meaningful collection of items. ~Mable (chat) 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not concerned. [http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Internet+services+websites+web+browsers&qs=n&form=QBNT&pq=internet+services+websites+web+browsers&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk= Bing News Search] turns up many listings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Huh, seems like Bing only gives regional articles, so all I see is unrelated Dutch stuff. A Google News search using the same query also doesn't give anything useful. Could you link some of these articles directly? ~Mable (chat) 09:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.