Talk:List of most expensive domain names

Can someone salvage this article?

While I work on very many list articles, the "list of most expensive..." articles are not something I care to work on due to their WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOPRICES, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That said, a few suggestions:

Can someone look to see if any "list of most expensive..." articles are WP:GA and WP:FA status? Such articles would help us figure out what to do with this one.

From a small sampling of the related list articles, minimally each entry needs an independent source.

I've gone ahead and changed the inclusion criteria to something that we can reasonably meet. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there are any FA or GA articles in WP:FL and WP:GA/ALL (warning, large page). Closest I can find is List of highest paid Major League Baseball players and List of highest-grossing films - both topics where there is a vast amount of media coverage and attention. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

source [1]

5 of the top 10 sites are cited from source [1]. So, it is strange that the #1 and other 15 from that list are missing here. 85.217.21.147 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

source [1] is not very trustworthy either. On a related note, source [3] is no source at all. 130.89.90.19 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive domain names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812124254/http://gsminsider.com/2014/04/xiaomi-purchased-mi-com-domain-record-3-6-million-new-url-global-users/ to http://gsminsider.com/2014/04/xiaomi-purchased-mi-com-domain-record-3-6-million-new-url-global-users/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New addition

Hi! I'm Andrew with MicroStrategy. I'd like to bring to editors' attention for consideration for this article an additional chart that might help provide some more context/resource information pertaining to top all-cash-transaction domain name sales. This chart would also serve as a strong subset of the data already listed, as cash-only sales are seen as the most-definitive measure of the value of the domain name itself. (source: http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/dnjournal-all-time-top-20-cash-domain-sales.htm)

Below are a few additional sources discussing the top "all-cash" public domain-only sale(s):

https://cryptobriefing.com/talk-is-cheap-but-voice-com-isnt-block-one-pays-world-record-for-domain/ https://domainnamewire.com/2019/06/18/record-breaker-voice-com-domain-name-sells-for-staggering-30-million/ https://domainnamewire.com/2019/06/20/yes-voice-com-is-the-most-expensive-publicly-announced-domain-ever-sold/#comments http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/dnjournal-all-time-top-20-cash-domain-sales.htm https://searchbusinessanalytics.techtarget.com/news/252465543/MicroStrategy-product-development-advances-after-Voicecom-sale https://www.cnet.com/news/xiaomi-spent-3-6m-on-new-two-letter-domain/ https://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/2016/20161207.htm https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180717005092/en/Premium-Domain-ICE.com-Sold-3.5-Million-Private https://domainnamewire.com/2014/05/29/sex-xxx-sells-5-million-deal/

As a member of MicroStrategy's digital marketing team, I will not be making edits relating to the company myself. Would an editor be willing to add this chart to the article for me? Glad to assist in any way possible.

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Having two tables in the article might not be the best approach because there would be duplicate data. An alternative is that we only include all-cash-transaction domain name sales in the existing table. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a great suggestion. If that is the case, I drew together a final version below - please let me know if this might be the best approach/replacement. Appreciate your help and responsiveness!

Domain	Price	Sale Date	Ref
Voice.com	$30 million	2019
Sex.com	$13 million	2010 November 17
Tesla.com	$11 million	2014
Fund.com	$9.99 million	2008
Porn.com	$9.5 million	2007
Porno.com	$8.88 million	2015
We.com	$8 million	2015
Z.com	$6.8 million	2014 November
Slots.com	$5.5 million	2010
Toys.com	$5.1 million	2009
Clothes.com	$4.9 million	2008
IG.com	$4.6 million	2013 September
HG.com	$3.77 million	2016
MI.com	$3.6 million	2014
Ice.com	$3.5 million	2018
Whisky.com	$3.1 million	2014 January
Sex.xxx	$3.0 million	2014
Vodka.com	$3.0 million	2006

Thanks again,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

References

You're welcome. The alternative I mentioned is my opinion. Other editors might have other opinions. We need to wait for a few days to see if there are different opinions.

And I think domain names that are paid in installments (such as LasVegas.com) can be included, too. What do you think?

It looks like some existing listings aren't in your table, such as Loans.com. Have you investigated and confirmed that they weren't transacted in cash? --Matt Smith (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt Smith, all valid points. Glad to have other editors weigh in, too, of course. In regard to the domain names paid in installments, recent resources and publications don't see them as "completed," which is something that could potentially be noted atop the article, or as a footer/mention. For context, DNJ refers to the LasVegas one as not a full cash transaction (yet), saying the "sale has not even been completed - it is being paid off in annual installments with many years of payments still to go." (http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/domainsales/dnjournal-all-time-top-20-cash-domain-sales.htm).

Glad to add Loans.com to the list (my apologies for leaving it off, as I was a little too focused on transactions since 2003). I know there were previous sources, but glad to reference https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/29/technology/loanscom-domain-name-sells-for-3-million.html and update the chart with this at the end if that will help.

Thanks again - looking forward to your thoughts and continued dialogue, especially should other editors wish to weigh in. Appreciate your attentiveness and this process!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84

Thanks for the additional reference for Loans.com.

I'm fine with listing LasVegas.com in a different section. Could you please advise on what the section name for LasVegas.com should be? --Matt Smith (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good - in terms of LasVegas.com in a different section, my inclination would be to name it "Domain Transactions Still In Progress/To Be Completed" - also, the expected completion date for Vegas.com is June 30, 2040, so that could certainly be an a new column for that section (perhaps "Expected Transaction Completion Date") (https://www.thedomains.com/2015/11/06/report-vegas-com-bought-lasvegas-com-in-2005-for-up-to-90-million-dollars/)

Thanks again,

Andrewggordon84 —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The update is completed. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

List only looks at .com domains

This list claims to be of the most expensive domains. There are some exclusions. However, I find it odd that there is no comment on other domains than .com. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the most expensive domains are .com for a variety of reasons. However, I find it unlikely that a few other domains are not expensive. A note on those other domains where a preliminary investigation has been done would be of interest, along with comments on the issues encountered. CuriousMarkE (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I can't recall hearing about a non .com domain that was sold for more than 3 million dollars. If you know any of them, please share the info. Thanks. Matt Smith (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The only publicly-announced one that would qualify is the following, if you'd like to find a reputable source and add it: sex.xxx $3,000,000 2014-06-11 ICM Registry Remember2Smile (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

AsSeenOnTv.com sources of sale

I've spent a fair amount of time looking into this and made good progress. I'm sharing my research in case what I found is not yet sufficient, in which case, the research can continue from where I left off.

I'm going to add the following source to the sale, which is an archived page through Business Wire announcing the sale and its amount: https://web.archive.org/web/20070715015235/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Jan_18/ai_58619762

Additionally, Business Insider articles with it: 2014 and 2016. Another credible source within the domain name industry: https://namebio.com/asseenontv.com

First archived version of AsSeenOnTv.com after the sale: asseenontv.com.

This was a public company, so in theory, we may be able to find old SEC filings to confirm the sale:

• LA Group, Inc. (NASDAQ-BB: ONTV) (Source).
• Ticker symbol "LAAQ" (Source). This was back when they used aseenontv.com (notice one "s" instead of two).
• "ONTV, Inc. [lagroupinc.com] is a public company" (Source).

First archive of lagroupinc.com redirects to aseenontv.com (note one "s" instead of two) (Source).

This source and another (both SeenOnTv.com) includes a business address in Rochester NY and:

• "SeenOnTV.com is a division of LA Group, Inc."
• "This site is controlled and operated by Seen On TV, Inc."

This source (ASeenOnTv.com) includes a business phone number and fax, as well as investor relation updates. Remember2Smile (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)