Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public procurement 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of public procurement websites

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

This article has WP:LINKFARM problems. There is some discussion about this on the talk page. A PROD with this reason was previously declined. I myself am uncertain: it looks like a valid spin-off of the external links section of Government procurement, but a list of external links of this size appears excessive; we are not a weblink directory. This probably merits community discussion. Sandstein 16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandstein for helping to foster the community discussion about this page. I thought I'd move my explanations from the article's talk page to this one, since the discussion will likely happen here. Here are the reasons for the creation of the page that might support its preservation.

The Wikipedia content about procurement data is likely to grow. The role of procurement data is changing, as it moves online and becomes open. From an obscure source of boring reports, it is becoming a major tool for government accountability and detection of fraud and corruption.
There are links to Wikipedia articles. As the profile of the data and agencies grows, their articles as likely to appear and the problem of the external links will lessen.
There are many lists of websites on Wikipedia. Like this one, some have a majority of external links in the mix.
There's already a partial list under the government procurement page, as Fayenatic London observed.
Perhaps there are ways to improve the article instead of deleting it? It is brand new. It would be nice to let the page live a little to see if the community comes to improve it. I've done what I could to get it started, but I was hoping that the community could make the page better over time.

I hope this clarifies where the idea and effort come from and I look forward to hearing from others interested in the fate of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozza (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete As pure a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as is possible. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ELNO#EL20, which states that stand-alone lists or embedded lists should not be composed mainly of external links. These lists are primarily intended as internal navigational aids, not a directory of sites on the web. Sideways713 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sideways. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. ELNO/NOTDIRECTORY and so on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:31, 13 April 2014 (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.