Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poast

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested WP:BLAR. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Poast. The contention is that it is a non-notable message board. (Administrative nomination: I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept.) Anarchyte (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This website seems to lack any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS outside of news about the data breach. Potentially WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS? Just another right wing fediverse instance, of which there are plenty. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments I made previously jp×g 🗯️ 05:31, 16 April 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amberstudent

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

WP:ROTM platform/company that fails the notability test. Refs are routine product listings, fundraising announcements and PR stuff. The article reads Iike a promotion of the company. Teemu.cod (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Teemu.cod (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about the company* that rely on sources other than the company and/or their execs. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (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.

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. Consensus is that the article fails to meet WP:NCORP or requires a complete rewrite. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [1] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [2] [3] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of websites

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

Weird meta-list that violates WP:NLIST and WP:OR. Almost completely unreferenced, there is no criteria regarding what kind of typology is used to describe the concept of type of a website. Some are red links (or would be if linked), like Affiliate agency, Membership website, Brand-building site, etc. Totally random and missing other types (ex. porn site). The latter is mentioned in the ORish inclusion-criteria lead as specifically not mentioned as it is a type of e-commerce website, but other e-commerce websites are listed, ex. Comparison shopping website. This is a mess that needs to be retired. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't keep random stuff WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced list. I mean, you can find sourced talking about websites, but this seems OR and would be too much of a hassle to source and rework. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly trivial article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep‎. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Software, Websites, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [4] was closed four days before this AFD was opened with a suggestion that sources mentioned in that discussion should be added to the article. This nomination feels premature. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. I only see one reliable and independent source about this company; that is not enough coverage. Also, much of the text is about one business person who helped to found it, rather than the company itself. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one you think meets GNG/NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an entire 19-page-long chapter in an OUP book completely about this topic: doi:10.1093/oso/9780198879657.003.0005. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Contributor892z (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a TROUT to the nominator for bringing this AfD 4 days after the prior one was closed as keep, and compounding the issue by not ensuring that the sources identified in that recent discussion (in which they participated) were either added to the article or listed here. It just creates more work for the limited group of editors who participate at AfD. It also makes closing more difficult because the closer has no easy way to determine if those sources were considered by delete !voters. Aside from that, as Asilvering noted (and echoing AusLondonder, who identified the link in the previous discussion) there is an entire chapter about the company in an Oxford University Press publication, so presumably no self-publishing issues there. I cannot read the chapter, but the abstract strongly suggests WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH are met - It's even titled "Inshorts: A Success Story of Short-Form Journalism" and the TOC on the sidebar suggests thorough coverage. Two other links AusLondonder found and not mentioned yet here and again here, both of which appear superior to the existing sources in the article. I'm at weak keep because I can't read the Oxford Press chapter and I'm not certain whether the newspapers are among those known to accept paid content. But under the circumstance I can't get to delete without those answers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:27, 21 April 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SciTech (magazine)

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

Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Even though I find the lack of recent coverage concerning, I think the late 1990s-early 2000s coverage is enough to probably pass WP:NWEB. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, and move to SciTechDaily. Although its URL has always been scitechdaily.com, the site was originally called Sci Tech Daily Review; it is currently called SciTechDaily (one word) but the name appears variously as SciTech Daily or Sci Tech Daily, making the search for coverage trickier than it may seem at first. Coverage establishing notability include the 1999 review in The Independent which rated Sci Tech Daily as "the best science news site" at the time – better than Science Daily, The New Scientist and Scientific American, "if you [could] accept its perfunctory design". More recently, there was an in-depth review in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries in 2015, which briefly covers the history of SciTechDaily; describes its format; and analyzes its content in comparison with Science Daily, noting that "SciTechDaily appears to edit sources more heavily for readability and publishes fewer articles overall and so may be preferred by those who find ScienceDaily overwhelming". The fact that it was nominated for a Webby led to a 2002 article in USA Today, about how the founder and her business partner set off 1,000 rockets in New Zealand to celebrate. There are many other reviews and articles recommending scitechdaily.com in newspapers such as The Courier Mail in Brisbane (2002) and The New York Times (1998) and again in 2000; industry trade publications such as Design News (2000); and academic journal articles such as The Lancet in 2000. These and other links have been added to the expanded article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this SciTechDaily is a popular science website, the most relevant notability criteria is WP:WEBSITE rather than WP:NCORP. The sources listed above demonstrate that the website fulfills WP:WEBCRIT #1 and #2 (short list for Webby award). @Hemiauchenia: Request reconsideration of expanded article in light of the above. I have also added one more article from New Zealand Herald since yesterday about SciTechDaily following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets general notability. Schwede 66 17:07, 15 April 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthy Mummy

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

This is odd. It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school. It's also a complete advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history. Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article. Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive. Wozza369 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete. The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books. It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here. At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find. Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox. They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history. Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page and the history. Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article. I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly. I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error. Wozza369 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional. "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums". All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported. It reads like an advert. KJP1 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more. This [5] gives context on how the website is used, [6] and [7] seem to cover the website and the founder. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is going to have to be delete. I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And it’s an advert. KJP1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete !vote, so this is a duplicate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made. I’m just not very familiar with the process. I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (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.

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae

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

Database that does not seem to pass notability guidelines. Potentially a WP:COI as the editor who created the page is an author of 4 out of the 5 used sources. Mbdfar (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a conflict of interest. Athel cb (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines, I couldn't find any sources except some mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 08:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Websites, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The online database IndExs is very relevant for herbaria and the botany/ mycology community. Since more than 20 year it is well-known and treated as singular reference database for the system of exsiccatae as explained under exsiccata.

Here are some of the sources and citations worldwide:

https://journals.abcjournal.aosis.co.za/index.php/abc/article/download/86/86

https://www.museum-joanneum.at/naturkundemuseum/forschung/botanik-mykologie/links/sammlungen

https://www.cjbg.ch/collections/bibliotheque/liens-utiles

https://www.rasl.ru/e_resours/Gerbary_bin/internet_adresa.htm

https://www.bgbm.org/de/web-ressourcen-botanik/andere-datenbanken-und-weitere-ressourcen-zur-taxonomie-und-systematik

and in special the notes in:

https://www.mycoportal.org/portal/collections/exsiccati/index.php?ometid=547&specimenonly=1&imagesonly=0&collid=0&sortBy=0

"Notes: This exsiccatae is not listed on http://indexs.botanischestaatssammlung.de"

We see no conflict of interest and will improve the text.

In some way we use the text under MycoBank as template. The position of the Botanische Staatssammlung is similar as that of Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute for MycoBank. TriebelD (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I count no rational while searching for and found "Did you mean: "IndEx - Index of Exsiccatae"^[1] -wikipedia". Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ""IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae" -wikipedia - Google Search". www.google.com.

Keep. I think the references cited above are enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations (some listed above, and more not listed that will soon be added) show that article meets GNG. Esculenta (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my current pursuit of herbarium information as a biologist, I found the contents of this page both well sourced and useful as a standalone article. The information here should at very least be merged into the Exsiccata page if a decision is made to delete it. Theodoreesquires (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for those trying to locate exsiccatae. And not sure why an expert in the field shouldn't be able to reference their own journal articles without being accused of COI! MeegsC (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article I nominated was heavy on WP:SELFCITE. As stated at WP:COI, I am not judging the editor on their opinions, integrity, or good faith. However, the editor's use of "we" in this thread and on their talk page does seem to indicate representation of a larger group, perhaps one that is affiliated with the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the homepage of the editor in question states that IndExs is/was a project of theirs. It does seem to be an undisclosed COI. However, if the community deems the article to be in an acceptable, neutral state, I will not further thie issue. Mbdfar (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but my earlier comment referred to the version that existed then (with 5 references, of which 4 were to publications of the editor who created the article). There have been many edits since. The reference list as it is now is no longer a clear example of self-promotion. Athel cb (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . Please

I hope that after the major improvements of the last days all editors agree now to keep the article as a standalone article. I have no COI. I am a senior researcher (retired) without commercial interest and working since the start of the project (now on a voluntary basis) for scientific curation of the freely and open accessible database IndExs. I therefore ask the Wikipedia administrators/ editors to remove the "proposed for deletion banner". TriebelD (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. First AfD resulted in no consensus with the second resulting in keep. Low participation in both. Cannot find sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This website states that "Koimoi.com is India’s #2 Digital Bollywood Portal with over 5 million users a month visiting its Web and Mobile sites." (which is not a claim they took from Koimoi's About, apparently). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks substantial evidence of notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines WP:GNG, with no independent secondary reliable sources cited. Additionally, the website itself is deemed unreliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES. The first cited link is blog website not a reliable source at all. Grabup (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant guideline here would be WP:NCORP, right? I don't think we've got any hope of that if no one's been able to make a solid keep vote through all of these AfDs. I went looking through google scholar/books and found a lot of glancing hits (eg, "Koimoi lists both Bollywood and Hollywood movies"), but nothing substantial. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (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.

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 keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chat websites

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

Unreferenced since 2013. Time to go for violating WP:V/WP:LISTN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid navigational list. Category:Chat websites exist. Lists are always more useful than categories as they allow more information to be listed. And WP:LISTN clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. For years now these sorts of list have always been kept when sent to AFD. Dream Focus 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a poorly updated and random list. Some sites closed years ago. Plenty of other sites are not listed. Some are miscategorised (eg. Omegle as "adult"). The categories are random and not necessarily helpful. Finally, it violates WP:NLIST.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At minimum, it's a fine navigational aid/index of articles on chat websites. The features in the tables need sources, yes, but that seems like a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, since at worst those can just be removed should someone wish to challenge them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: list needs to be updated not deleted as this is useful for readers as they might search of chat websites here n there, like chat websites in 2012 or 2023 anything this would be helpful. HarryD (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly different discussion, but I don't see a difference between Online chat and Instant messaging, and there is already a similar list at Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients. There was a failed merge proposal in 2006 that argued there were differences between online chat and IM, but I can't find evidence that these differences really exist (e.g. IRC is now described as "instant messaging"). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voice chat and video chat might be part of online chat but not instant messaging, but the articles are very vague about this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Topps#Topps in the modern baseball card industry. Editors have had two weeks to make their opinion known. I'm closing this as a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETopps

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

The article was subject to WP:BLAR due to lack of notability, and was later restored without any additional sources (and missing the previous hatnotes pointing to the fact). Since the deletion was objected to, and few sources do exist, bringing it here. My take is to Redirect, as my search of sources came up with very little. Викидим (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Topps#Topps_in_the_modern_baseball_card_industry and protect if necessary. No case has been made (by editor, not nom) for why the redirect isn't a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was already WP:BLARed multiple times. As I have stated I see no problem with redirecting yet again, but would like to get some consensus on this that can be referred to in future BLAR comments per WP:ATD-R. Викидим (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 April 2024 (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.

Website Proposed deletions

SoccerCleats101 (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)

[1] ""IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae" -wikipedia - Google Search". www.google.com.

[1]