Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

Points of interest related to Websites on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Websites. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Websites|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Websites. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:WEB.

Purge page cache

watch

Participatory Culture Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article for a cryptocurrency gambling site, no reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, Organizations, and Websites. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Block (online casino) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article for a cryptocurrency gambling site, no reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Organizations. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No non-promotional sourcing to be found. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoora Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The topic in question lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It does not meet the necessary criteria for independently significant under Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Either the article should be deleted or merge with with the relevant parent article, Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete the Fatoora Platform page, as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under both WP:GNG and subject-specific notability.

  1. Independent Sources: The platform has been covered by reliable, independent sources such as PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Saudi Gazette, which provide significant analysis on its implementation and role in tax compliance within Saudi Arabia. These sources establish the platform's notability as they are independent, non-promotional, and provide in-depth coverage.

  2. Impact: Fatoora is integral to Saudi Vision 2030, a major national reform program, and plays a critical role in digital transformation and tax regulation in the country. It impacts millions of businesses and has been recognized as a significant development in Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization.

  3. Notability Compliance: The article is well-supported by both primary and independent sources, fulfilling the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The platform's wide-reaching impact, both locally and internationally, demonstrates its significance.

  For these reasons, I believe the article should be retained. Njoy deep (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FunTrivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I like this site, and have used it for a while, but it unfortunately fails WP:GNG, all sources are self-published. The archived Yahoo source is merely a list of similar trivia websites. Sekundenlang (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of significant coverages and one source is not enough. Xegma(talk) 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Websites, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Recreated and deleted countless times, was recreated by a indefinitely blocked editor with the edit summary "the day wikipedia admins decide not to be DUMB, this will be allowed as an article." Still lacking secondary sources. No indication of in-depth secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and re-SALT. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources in my own WP:BEFORE, and there's certainly nothing to work with in the article. No valid redirect target either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only prior AfD for this was almost 19 years ago. Since then, it was correctly deleted several times under WP:G4, and a few more times under speedy criteria that are no longer used. By itself, "previously deleted" is no longer a valid reason to delete the page. We need consensus based on source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
  • Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
  • Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
  • Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
  • Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
  • Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
  • Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
  • Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
  • Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.

Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookBrowse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV of this book review site; references are mostly mentions; awards don't appear to be particularly notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BookBrowse has been around a long time and well known in the book world. It is often cited by other reliable sources, such as The Cambridge History of Postmodern Literature[7], The New York Times[8][9], and dozens of volumes of Contemporary Authors[10]. It was singled out in Public Libraries (journal)[11], The Public Librarian's Guide to the Internet[12], the Chicago Tribune[13], The Bookseller[14], Publishers Weekly ("Book Site Gives Online Buying That Old Store Feel". 6 January 1999); In 1998 was featured by Yahoo! as its Incredibly Useful Site of the Day. It would be nice to have a lengthy article dedicated solely about the site, but these are often hard to find for many topics. The question for trivial coverage is if there is enough material to write an article with, and that has been done. -- GreenC 22:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. I also found a decent amount of Newspapers.com coverage, without going too in depth here are some of the sources I found [15] [16] [17] [18]. Also some coverage in these books [19]. Probably more if I looked harder, there's definitely more sigcov in the sea of mentions but I think this is enough for me to vote keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC and PARAKANYAA. Οἶδα (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airnav.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV and there is no clear reason why this is a notable website. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article itself has no reference. I cannot find any sources talk about it, only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is very heavily cited (see Google books, Google scholar). There is a page of coverage here and a paragraph of coverage here. I imagine there is more so I suggest participants take a good look at Google books for significant coverage. C F A 💬 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fixed Google books link. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while CFA didn't cast a "vote" in this discussion, they have brought sources to the discussion which should be reviewed. Soft deletion doesn't seem appropriate as deletion is no longer "uncontroversial".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's hardly more than a passing mention to be found (who runs it? etc), but wow, the quantity of mentions in articles, journals, and websites is - in this case - informative. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Despite the current article lacking in form and substance, that in itself does not merit deletion if the subject (i.e. the website itself) is notable for its impact—see WP:WEB and the sources that CFA and Tedder linked. With enough time and willing editors, this article could be improved beyond a stub. Jtwhetten (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The article itself may not be anything special, but the website is insanely useful for us who are in aviation, including those of us who write about airports, especially smaller general aviation airports. SouthernDude297 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree wholeheartedly. Hard to square that against keeping NPOV but there is really no substitute for this site when it comes to general aviation. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 22:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you think the subject is important but have you found sources that provide SIGCOV that can establish notability? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: Whilst there may be a plethora of sources mentioning Airnav.com, none of them provide significant coverage of the topic itself with only passing mentions of the subject existing and no secondary sources existing. Just because it may be considered "important" by some does not mean that the subject is notable in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated opinion --- For benefit of the discussion (as well as my own interest in the process here) I scratched out a source assessment table. Currently this only considers the references that exist in the article as most others that I can find are only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Jtwhetten
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Merry, John A. (2001). Aviation Internet Directory: A Guide to the 500 Best Web Sites. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-07-137216-9.			Inclusion in a "top 500" list likely does not constitute significant coverage.	✘ No
Levitt, Carole A.; Mark E. Rosch (2006). The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet. American Bar Association. p. 690. ISBN 978-1-59031-671-9.			~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
Silver, H. Ward (2005). Two-Way Radios & Scanners for Dummies. For Dummies. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7645-9582-0.			~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105213703/http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav%2Fapplications%2Fd_afd			The source does not mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110228043325/http://www.faa.gov/air%5Ftraffic/flight%5Finfo/aeronav/productcatalog/supplementalcharts/airportdirectory/			The source does not mention the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Given that these "partially significant" sources are mostly summaries, it may better serve the community if this subject is integrated into the articles linked in the second sentence of this article (in the form of "this information is aggregated and freely available at AirNav.com"). I believe this satisfies GNG as well as WP:NOPAGE while keeping this subject listed on WP. I am changing my opinion to Delete. My comment above has been struck. Thanks to all for the discussion. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---