Talk:List of employment websites

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 4 March 2024, see discussion.
keep, 19 July 2013 (UTC), see discussion.

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Why deletion of employment websites that do not have an Wikipedia article in the English version although are biggest in their countries?[edit]

Many important employment websites especially if they are not from and English speaking country do not have and article in English Wikipedia and despite of that fact are the most important in their countries. So i do not get the point why should not be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.26.159 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to know which sites are important, and which are not? We cannot possibly list every single such site. If the article is just listing a site without a reliable source, it could just be spam, we have no way of knowing. Being important in one country isn't necessarily enough, either. The essays Wikipedia:Write the article first and WP:LSC help explain this. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example alexa ranking can be used or looking for article in wikipedia native language of the website. Removing important employment website for contributions is not helping to make this list valuable for all countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.26.159 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa has its own problems, but even so, popularity is not the same as reliability or importance. Without reliable, independent sources of substance, as site is unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Including sites without sources here would invite spam, and wouldn't necessarily help readers very much. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated data - Suggesting to update the list with top employment sites by traffic[edit]

Entries have not been added or updated here since 2020, with last minor edits 6 months ago. I suggest updating the list of reference with updated data regarding the most visited employment websites in the world.

This can be done by using a free public data source (Similarweb free sections show upto 50 websites), which is also considered reliable (when it comes to web traffic data). Their data is also referenced in the "list of most visited websites" for almost a year now, and it's considered the best alternative to Alexa internet that's shut down.

I would like to add this data here and replace the outdated data.

After that I will also keep track and update with the monthly data each month. GrowTHC (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See #Revert, below. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Regarding this revert. I had attempted to fix the problem, but the end result was worse than before, so I reverted to an older version. Having the article merely regurgitate a SimilarWeb page from an arbitrary time period is worse than useless. These websites target different groups of people in different countries, so if readers need to know the "Similarweb ranking" for some unfathomable reason, they can just go to that website. Additionally, per WP:EL, this list should not include direct links to these sites in the body of the article. It should especially not include external links to some, but not others, as this makes the promotional issues even more pronounced.

The standard for inclusion in these kinds of lists is typically WP:WTAF. If there is no reason to believe a website is notable enough to have its own article, there is no reason to think it should be included here, either. If reliable, independent sources explain why a specific website is notable, cite and summarize that reason. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]