Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nudgepath (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 24 June 2021 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geliyoo (2nd nomination).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

AfDs for this article:
Geliyoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Black-listed: [13] [14]. Press release: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Wordpress: [20]. Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): [21] [22].

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: [23] [24] [25] [26]. Written with similar promotional content: [27] [28].

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/52052-geliyoo-ceo-su-onemli-gelismeleri-linkedin-den-paylasti.html
  2. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/services.html
  3. ^ http://www.sosyalsosyal.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo-com-roportaj
  4. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/about.html
  5. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/blog_post_4.html
  6. ^ http://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/53169-mozilla-5-0-compatible-geliyoobot-1-0-http-www-geliyoo-com.html
  7. ^ http://www.haber7.com/internet/haber/1047133-turk-motoru-geliyoo-rss-servisini-yayina-aciti
  8. ^ http://haber.gazetevatan.com/turk-yapimi-arama-motoru-geliyoo-aktif/550678/43/Gundem
  9. ^ http://www.reklamazzi.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo.134298.htm
  10. ^ https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694
  11. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/propaganda-in-istanbul.html
  12. ^ https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694
  13. ^ https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2248424580812/a-young-entrepreneur-who-believes-in-creating-a-space-for-himself-in-the-industry-anuj-pradhan
  14. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331822015_Geliyoo_Web_Browser
  15. ^ http://marketersmedia.com/geliyoo-com-announces-a-new-all-in-one-search-site/3587
  16. ^ https://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02
  17. ^ https://www.haberler.com/geliyoo/
  18. ^ https://ipsnews.net/business/2021/04/18/4-awards-given-to-hakan-atabas-at-once-in-the-fields-of-blockchain-and-finance/
  19. ^ https://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02
  20. ^ http://www.habertorial.com/2012/11/21/turkiyenin-en-kapsamli-link-arsivi-gmoz-geliyoo/
  21. ^ https://clutch.co/tr/web-developers/istanbul?page=1
  22. ^ https://plex.page/Geliyoo
  23. ^ https://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201701191026837454-yerli-arama-motoru-google-sonuc/
  24. ^ https://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-tepki-gordu-2598805
  25. ^ https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bir-turkiye-hikayesi-10-yil-calistik-googlea-yerli-rakip-yaptik-dediler-altindan-bakin-ne-cikti-661817
  26. ^ https://www.sabah.com.tr/teknokulis/haberler/2017/01/19/bakanliktan-beklenen-geliyoo-arama-motoru-aciklamasi
  27. ^ https://www.milliyet.com.tr/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-2380016
  28. ^ https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/teknoloji/iste-yerli-arama-motorumuz-geliyoo-40338705
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:33, 3 July 2021 (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. The nomination is so erroneous (literally showing GNG) that it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and could just as well be also speedily kept by WP:CSK no. 3 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

AfDs for this article:
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t understand why citations 7 through 11 are even being referenced or what their relevance to the subject of the article is as they mostly do not mention any keywords such as “skeptic,” “podcast,” or “Novella.” Novella is mentioned in passing a couple times but never in connection to the podcast. As far as I can tell the two Skeptical Inquirer articles are the only sources that aren’t self-published or from a blog, social media, or other unreliable source. However, these two articles are written by journalists (Rob Palmer and Susan Gerbic) who aren’t particularly well known from a magazine that isn’t particularly well known. It's also worth noting that these authors are part of "the Guerilla Skeptcism on Wikipedia team" according to the profile information at the bottom of both articles. These sources are also in interview format so almost all the information is directly coming from the hosts of the show as opposed to an independent or secondary source. I searched around for some sources that might indicate some level of notability, but the only sources I could find that had more than a trivial mention include book riot, The Hindu Buisness Line, Business Insider, and Thrillist. These sources only dedicate a short paragraph to the podcast and I’m unconvinced that the topic meets WP:GNG. The podcast won some People’s Choice Awards, which might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT but the guideline says that an article “may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria” not that it’s guaranteed. Also, the People’s Choice Award is arguably not a “well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization”. If someone would like to add the sources I found to the hosts’ articles that might be worth the time, but I don’t think anything from this article is salvageable so I’m not sure that would even count as a merge.If the podcast is determined to be notable enough for a stand alone article I still think the majority of the article needs to be rewritten and given the available sources wouldn’t be much more than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Skeptical Inquirer has been in publication for over forty years, has an international distribution and is widely regarded as one of the foundational publications of modern skepticism. To describe it as "not particularly well known" as part of an AfD argument strains credulity. The further claim that those two cites are the only independent ones is just blatantly false: I count 12 independent sources cited in the references.
The complaint about cites 7-11 above would have taken a single mouse click to verify: they're about one of the podcast's hosts, and are properly used to support content about that host. The claim that they don't contain the word "Novella" is categorically false. They're all about Steven Novella.
The complaints here about the Podcast Awards are even more strange. We have an article about them which has survived an AfD and is well-sourced, yet they're somehow not notable? That's an oxymoron.
The fact that even the nominator managed to find 4 references which aren't currently used in the article demonstrates rather clearly that there's no lack of sourcing (and thus, no lack of notability) here.
Finally, I'd like to draw any other editor's attention to the last AfD and the result: Unanimous "Keep". Have the sources which supported it then since ceased to exist? No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This podcast handily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Here are several secondary WP:RSes which cover the subject in moderate-to-heavy depth at a national level.[1][2][3] But here are also some local sources with even more significant coverage of the subject.[4][5] It's also featured often as a "top listen" in features about science podcasts.[6][7] Their book has been reviewed in national outlets.[8][9][10][11] As a news/entertainment organization, they also pass WP:AUD with a whopping 132 million+ downloads and 100,000+ weekly listeners.[12][3] So, in my interpretation of the relevant WP:PAG, it's an obvious keep.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remarkably, it's on several current Top Ten Science Podcasts lists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shibboleth. "A magazine that isn’t particularly well known"? Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the AfD nomination lists multiple independent sources, one has to ask why we are even bothering with this. I mean literally one could vote "Keep per nom" without any trace of irony. This should be SNOW withdrawn by the nominator, followed by a light trouting. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hyperion35 for introducing me to the term trouting. This is precisely what I needed in my life this fine Thursday.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it refers to WP:TROUT; the act of smacking someone in the face with a dead fish.
Which, now that I think about it, is far worse than what's described in your link.
And it gets better! You can also get whaled. Which is, of course, far better than getting whaled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow yeah I would much rather get Urban Dictionary trouted than smacked in the face with a dead fish. The former is is a child's game, the latter is a recipe for giving somebody FACE GANGRENE.[13][14] /s --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stealing FACE GANGRENE for the name of my new Grindcore band. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Sixty Billion Stars. And No Aliens? What Now?". Mind Matters. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  2. ^ Dinerstein, MBA, Chuck (2018-10-02). "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - a Useful Toolkit". American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  3. ^ a b Storr, Will. "'Ebola is man-made', and other crazy conspiracy theories". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  4. ^ Pomeroy, Ross. "Scientist Goes on Epic Rant About 60 Minutes' Gullible Story on UFOs". Fairfield Sun Times. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  5. ^ Marielle, Alaikia (2019-03-22). "Binge Bytes: 'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe'". The Daily Utah Chronicle. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  6. ^ McFadden, Christopher (2019-10-06). "7+ of the Best Science Podcasts for 2019". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  7. ^ "12 Best Space and Science Podcasts to Listen to Right Now". The Manual. 2021-04-05. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  8. ^ "Nonfiction Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake by Steven Novella, with Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria, Jay Novella, and Evan Bernstein. Grand Central, $30 (496p) ISBN 978-1-5387-6051-2". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  9. ^ "THE SKEPTICS' GUIDE TO THE UNIVERSE Kirkus Reviews". Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  10. ^ Editors, The (2019-01-03). "'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe' by Steven Novella - RealClearBooks". www.realclearbooks.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  11. ^ Dombrowski, Eileen (2018-11-19). "TOK Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake". Oxford Education Blog. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  12. ^ "About The Skeptics Guide to the Universe". 2018-12-04. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  13. ^ Oh, Woo Taek; Jun, Jin Woo; Giri, Sib Sankar; Yun, Saekil; Kim, Hyoun Joong; Kim, Sang Guen; Kim, Sang Wha; Han, Se Jin; Kwon, Jun; Park, Se Chang (September 2019). "Staphylococcus xylosus Infection in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) As a Primary Pathogenic Cause of Eye Protrusion and Mortality". Microorganisms. 7 (9): 330. doi:10.3390/microorganisms7090330. PMC 6780347. PMID 31500280.
  14. ^ Gornatti-Churria, Carlos D.; Crispo, Manuela; Shivaprasad, H. L.; Uzal, Francisco A. (March 2018). "Gangrenous dermatitis in chickens and turkeys". Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation : Official Publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc. 30 (2): 188–196. doi:10.1177/1040638717742435. ISSN 1040-6387. PMC 6505868. PMID 29145799.
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 no consensus. North America1000 09:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rialto Report

The Rialto Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable podcast, sourced to interviews (i.e. primary sources) at blogs (i.e. not reliable sources), so the citations are double-unusable. Note in the interests of full disclosure that I chopped approx 50k from the article before nominating, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A single-purpose account Bayview71 is the article creator and pretty much the only contributor since its 2015 creation, coming back to add entry after entry after entry. Would not be a bit surprised if this is an undisclosed paid editor situation. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - @TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - as stated in my edit summary, the article seems sufficiently notable as presented - nonetheless - a casual Google News Search includes relevant news articles appearing in The New York Times (ref); Los Angeles Times (ref); PBS News (ref); CNN News (ref); The Guardian (ref);The Atlantic (ref); Vanity Fair (ref) - and more - further - a casual Google Search for "The Rialto Report" curently notes "29,000 results" (8pm/est/usa, 06/23/2021) - a substantial internet presence I would think - and includes major internet websites, such as the following: Apple PodCasts; Spotify; YouTube; WikiData - and a great number of other relevant results as well - adding greatly to the notability of "The Rialto Report" article I would think - there may be some room for improvement with the article of course - but seems sufficiently notable, in itself, for "KEEPING" the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you're doing here is a WP:GHITS argument, e.g. the CNN link that contains the line Journalist Lili Anolik and "The Rialto Report" creator Ashley West are behind the series.. That in no way whatsoever supports notability for the podcast, all you did was find a simple Google hit. Linking to their entry pages at itunes, spotify and youtube are also pointless, and not establishers of notability, as they are just directory services. By your criteria, every knucklehead with a Tiktok presence would be article-eligible. And finally, Wikidata? No, all Wikimedia sites are self-published, and this invalid for establishing notability. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - according to the text in the main article, "The Rialto Report" article covers, not only PodCasts, but also other related materials as well, including "Investigative articles" and related materials ("audio, photo and documentary archives") - a worthy (and perhaps unique) collection of historical material - with or without PodCasts I would think - also in this regard, seems "JSTOR" and "Google Scholar" contain relevant results - please understand that I'm flexible re the article depending on WP:CONSENSUS with other editors - the article could use some improvements of course - but nonetheless the article seems worthy and notable imo at the moment - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drbogdan: can you please provide a link to specific sources that contain more than a trivial mention of the podcast rather than continuing to link to search results? Please provide a source that contains at the very least a short paragraph dedicated to the podcast. If you believe this article meets WP:GNG could you cite (and provide a direct quote) of a wikipedia guideline, rule, policy, or even an essay that supports your belief? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TipsyElephant: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - very busy with other interests (some real-world) at the moment - and not clear what you may think is particularly relevant - perhaps you can check out the links from the several searches noted above - there seems to be some links (of the many listed) you may find particularly relevant and interesting I would think - as before, Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2021 (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 03:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sehat.com.pk

Sehat.com.pk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP as it lacks reliable sources that provide independent and significant coverage. Notices of website launch and passing mentions are far from the level of coverage expected under WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator is/was an employee of the parent company according to their user page declaration. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a promo page.EleOk6e3ih (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 1 July 2021 (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 Oregon Herald. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State Media, Inc.

Oregon State Media, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both the corporation and the "news website" are lacking notability per WP:GNG- significant coverage, reliable, sources, independent of the subject. It's hard to confirm that it exists except by very raw primary sources (eg state corporate records). Further, it is far from meeting Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability.

Note this is NOT the historic newspaper, it's a website reusing the name.

Some history on OSMI/Oregon Herald:

The article for "Oregon Herald" (the website) was originally created in 2007 and deleted by PROD in the same year. A version must have existed in some form in 2010, and was recreated in 2011 with cleanup tags dated 2010 (so, copy/pasted).

This page, OSMI, was created in 2011 also. The organization was incorporated in 2010 and dissolved in 2018. Their address is simply a commercial post office box. Dissolution doesn't directly affect notability but still interesting. And I'm actually surprised this isn't directly part of the pink slime journalism network- that would make it MORE likely to be notable.

Related AFDs I'm creating at the same time:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (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. Sandstein 06:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi

AfDs for this article:
Slice of SciFi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the current sources are reliable secondary sources and finding reliable secondary sources is not possible using Google News as far as I can tell. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive15

Thrive15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to have been created by a single-purpose account to promote a business that is not of any particular importance soibangla (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. soibangla (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: References do appear to make it look well sourced, but none stack up to provide meaningful information. The company simply isn't notable at all and readily fails WP:GNG; little appears in search. Company feels scammy too. --Tautomers(T C) 06:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has sufficient coverage including these in-depth [5] and [6], also a mention in Fast Company and few other mentions are from credible publications. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP therefore references are required to contain both in-depth information *and* "Independent Content". Both the emails mentioned by Tautomers are promotional "pre-launch" articles and a careful read of those references shows that the information was provided by the company, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 11:21, 6 July 2021 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Wallah

Physics Wallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. I am unable to find significant discussion of this website in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2021 (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 23:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carsforsale.com

Carsforsale.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed the article for the following reasons:

  • created by a single-purpose user
  • the only sources are either own references, or references from sporting events sponsored by the company (which are things companies simply pay for)
  • no treatment in sources that is not superficial

The article was deleted when the PROD expired.

Shortly after, yet another single-purpose account was created, and was used to request the undeletion, which was granted as per procedure.

I am therefore AFDing it. I believe Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing tool. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Also, in searching for coverage, I found only three articles that had any sort of coverage of this website: [7], [8], [9]. The first two sources are pretty niche coverage and really don't tell us much about the subject. And the third source is just run of the mill business news. I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to defining "significant coverage" but given the issues flagged in the nom and the relative lack of coverage, I vote to delete.DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure marketing, no RS. Bishonen | tålk 07:26, 22 June 2021 (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 no consensus. The central point in this debate is whether the sources that Haleth provided are sufficient to establish notability. Of those, the Kotaku sources are probably the most substantial. An argument against these sources counting for notability is that they are more about the preceding wikis than the new Fallout Wiki and that the coverage of the latter is more tangential. However, the article contains information about the history of the preceding wikis as well, so it can be argued that the article's subject is wider than its title would suggest. I do not necessarily agree with that perspective, but find that the "keep" position has merit to it. As to level of support for each position, while there is a sizable majority for deletion it is not so large that I can call it a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout Wiki

Fallout Wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not look to pass GNG, only trivial coverage. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- passes WP:GNG. There are five references that are significant coverage along with additional four. enjoyer -- talk 03:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's take a look at the sources to determine if they represent sustained, significant coverage. Nine citations. Two are from the subject in question, a fan-wiki, making it WP:USERG. 4 of the 7 remaining mention The Vault explicitly. Of these, basically none are actually about The Vault. The Kotaku and Eurogamer sources are about fans spending a lot of time editing it. One is about the person who started it. None of these constitute SIGCOF. Subject isn't notable to anyone outside of "a small population of enthusiastic fans". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST. The current Fallout Fandom site is actually a merger from two Fallout Wikis, Nukapedia and the Vault, as reflected in the article subtitle and its contents. And there has been sustained coverage about both Nukapedia and the Vault with sources that has yet to be cited in the article:
Fallout Fans Continue To Struggle With The Company That Hosts Their Wiki
Fallout Fans Resist Wikia’s Attempt To Pivot To Video
Fans Spend 54 Years Writing New Vegas Wiki
The Vault Wiki was also cited by reliable publications as a source and something of an involved 3rd party during the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay.
Battle over Fallout Online MMO rages on
Interplay responds to Bethesda's 'absurd' claim that its Fallout MMO can't involve Fallout
Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to “Undermine” Fallout
It is rare for fan Wikis to get that kind of coverage to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, but in this case it does exist. Haleth (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The sources in the article do not present significant coverage. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ARTN under the notability guideline page, article content does not determine notability, which is the property of the subject in question, and when the source material exists, even a lack of adequate sourcing within the article itself will not decrease the subject's notability. The Kotaku articles I brought up discussed one of the Fallout wiki predecessors specifically and in detail, and the article has yet to cite them. Also, ImaginesTigers' source analysis is incorrect; the articles are specifically about the Vault and its status as one of the largest and most popular wiki sites at the time, not at all a general discussion about the activities of Fallout fandom and other fansites as they claimed. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's helpful, I'll point out that the discussion should probably focus more on the additional sources identified by Haleth, particularly (1) and (2), both by Kotaku/VICE writer Gita Jackson. Debateably WP:SIGCOV, but certainly not "passing mentions". Suriname0 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate full-length articles by the same author/source count in aggregate as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, so it is not up for debate whether it is in fact WP:SIGCOV. The question would be, how much of the extent of available sources within and outside of the article is enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold, and there is no vetted objective standard for the concept as every editor has different standards and metrics on how much is enough. Haleth (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are trivial with the exception of the two articles from Kotaku. However, as they have the same author it really isn’t enough RS to meet the multiple sources criteria of GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Haleth. Sources are sparse indeed, and I too am not sure if they are sufficient. But compared with the dozens or hundreds of other fandom sites out there, this actually has some sources to show for it. And so I'm leaning keep here. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV -- unlike Haleth, I find that the sources don't deal with the subject in depth, but only deal with certain related events, basically disputes between a community on the internet and a certain company, which is an immense trope of the videogame culture and the internet as a whole, and not specific to the subject at all -- none of these sources tell us that much about the subject. The Destructoid article Fans spend 58 years updating the Fallout New Vegas wiki covers a brief phase of the subject's history. That actually appears to be the strongest reference. However, that article is three short paragraphs long, because it essentially addresses a single piece of information, a spike in activity in 2010, which is a minor curiosity, if even that, i.e. a triviality. This is about the sources referenced in this discussion. As to the rest, I've reviewed them too, and I join ImaginesTigers' argument. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a fansite would need significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article, and this subject does not meet that standard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Fallout (series). I'm not entirely persuaded by the sources cited by Haleth: they refer mostly to this wiki's predecessors. With what scant coverage we have, mentioning this topic in the context of its game series makes more sense to me. Sandstein 07:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per ImaginesTigers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Significant, independent coverage shown to exist. "No it's not" is not a strong argument against detailed evidence otherwise. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Bombay

Humans of Bombay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement of a photography website founded by a non notable person Karishma Mehta. do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the provided by User:Beccaynr are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please be more specific about why each source fails GNG? The first few I looked at seemed ok, but you might be more familiar with these news sources than I am. pburka (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability. fails WP:ORG. Just a promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:WEB, This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia, and per WP:WEBCRIT, web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage [...], which may be why the related Humans of New York article exists. But it seems more relevant for this discussion that there are multiple, non-trivial published works independent of the website itself, as noted in my comment above, and per WP:INHERENTWEB, When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. To review sources per the applicable guideline, I offer the following source assessment table, with an emphasis on the significant and demonstrable effects of the website on culture, society, entertainment, etc:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Being the humans of Bombay, (The Indian Express, 2014)
 Yes Yes Yes Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its themes, including social and political issues: "A case in point, their post of two men in an embrace with their quote: “Decriminalise Section 377”, after the Supreme Court, in a ruling in December 2013 upheld the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Their latest posts are themed around the elections." ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its philanthropic work, including, "She conducted a Facebook campaign with the aim of raising funds for an organization called Kranti that helps the daughters of sex workers in Mumbai. While the aim was to collect Rs. 5 lakhs, Humans of Bombay ended up collecting Rs. 6.5 lakhs in just one day." ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Includes "On Wednesday, August 12, Humans of Bombay -- the Indian version of photographer Brandon Stanton’s famous Humans of New York blog — posted a striking pic of a young girl who’s speaking out against child marriage. [...] The post has since gone viral, gaining over 60K likes. People from across the world asked how they can make the girl’s dream of becoming an Indian police service officer a reality. Humans of Bombay reports that she's supported by Aangan, a child protection organization," and additional WP:SECONDARY context and commentary on the significance. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Discusses the increasing popularity of the website, a philanthropic effort to raise funds for a child with blood cancer ("In the first 30 minutes, a lakh was raised. Over the next few days, Rs 10.31 lakh was donated by strangers who wanted her to be able to ‘give her board exams and dance without feeling weak.’"), the development of a related book, and direct discussion of its influence on culture and society, e.g. "For instance, it was on the Humans of Bombay page that celebrity hair stylist Sapna Bhavnani opened up about her gang-rape. Around 88,000 people came out in support of the post and it was shared almost 9,000 times. The influence of the blog was felt when news media ran the story and gave other women the strength to share their own stories of abuse. Another story that captured hundreds of hearts was about a single mother who believed she had married the man of her dreams, but instead faced an abusive marriage and a terrifying escape from her husband," and "The blog made it possible to talk about taboo subjects, and has also allowed people to reach out to one another. For instance, posts about alcoholism or depression are met with support and helpline numbers to combat the illness." ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes This article opens with a mention of the impact of Humans of New York and states, "One such initiative from India is already getting recognition for their work. The similarly-named ‘Humans of Bombay’ has been following the same model as ‘Humans of New York’, by covering people from all walks of lives and inviting them to share their stories," and concludes with "It is amazing to see the power of social media and how initiatives like ‘Humans of Bombay’ have used their popularity to help real people in need." ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Discusses the ongoing development of the website, its popularity, and its stance within culture and society, i.e. "The page has an underlying theme of being inclusive — of people from every strata of society, of all ages and sexuality." ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ~ This article begins "Actor and Bigg Boss 13 winner Sidharth Shukla got featured on Humans of Bombay. For a special post on International Women’s Day, he talked about his mother and how she has always supported the family," and includes his statement, which includes, "I have always believed in the concept of equality between men and women. And there’s nothing a woman can’t do which a man can in this day and age." ~ Partial
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}}.
These are not all of the sources available, and these are only English-language sources. Based on the popularity and significance of the website, it seems reasonable to assume that non-English sources also WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2021 (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) Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jar'Edo Wens hoax

AfDs for this article:
Jar'Edo Wens hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long term hoax that got a brief spate of coverage when it was unveiled and nothing before or since. Just a blip on the radar in Wikipedia history. Delete or merge to History of Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia for lack of long term notability. Last AFD closed as keep less than a year after it happened on assumption that it was noteworthy, but the lack of coverage after the fact suggests WP:NOTNEWS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2021 (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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chat-Avenue

Chat-Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There have been PROD and speedy attempts in the past, let's see what folks here at AfD make of this...

This chat site may be well-established and popular, but I cannot find any proper secondary RS coverage of it, so I'm moving for deletion on notability grounds — fails WP:GNG / WP:WEBSITE.

That said, TBH it does get some media attention, but it seems all to do with paedophile sting operations etc., and even then in local press only, so I don't know if any of that counts as sigcov. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notability (WP:GNG) grounds - no RS coverage beyond, as pointed out, local media paedophile sting stuff. It's not even the world's oldest chat room, so there's no excuse to name check it in the Chat room article, even. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources and presumed notability grounds- Chat Avenue is by far one of the oldest and most popular community chat websites on the web (even existing before Facebook, Omegle and Chatroulette). A considerable amount of media-related coverages have also been aired by leading publications such as the BBC and Reddit— with articles dating back to decades ago. There are also many new articles over the past couple decades that mention "Chat Avenue" by name without giving further information. Any individual searching for more information regarding Chat Avenue would discover it here. The deletion of this article would suggest deleting every page linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chat_websites in addition to thousands of other articles categorised specifically for chat sites. There have been multiple PROD and speedy deletions attempts in the past which were all rejected. Reeebsss (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)— Reeebsss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Presumed notability'? 'One of the oldest chat websites'? These are not policy grounds. And deletion of this article has nothing to do with the others listed in the chat websites one. As for whether previous speedy or PROD attempts were successful has no bearing on this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added recent secondary RS coverage. Chat Avenue IS mentioned by many publications (not just some local ones as you claim) and has a very long and extensive history at that. Many of the articles mention chat avenue by name only without much details. A wikipedia article would clear that up for those people and provide some usefulness to this already popular site. Previously speedy deletion and PROD attempts shows that this article has been reviewed before. Bringing this back up yet again would be redundant and questionable, IMO. --Reeebsss (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just stumbled on this now. Definitely keep. This website is extremely popular and makes headlines often. Many senior editors have edited this article in the past without seeing the need for a deletion. I noticed RS were added recently, so i think it meets the necessary requirements of remaining. Anniehh13 (talk) 03:34, 03 July 2021 (UTC)— Anniehh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist. This needs some more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (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. czar 05:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Culture

AfDs for this article:
Spectrum Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This previously consensus-deleted article on a website has been recreated, sourced entirely to its own About section and a couple non-RS blogs (e.g. the waffle recipe blog wafflewindow.com). A WP:BEFORE on Google News fails to find anything more than fleeting references (e.g. mention of the site in a list of writer credits in bylines, etc.) and nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The site purports to have several notable writers, however, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2009-06 (closed as ✗ delete)
Related discussions: 2019-11 Funland (album) (closed as ✓ keep)
Logs: 2009-06 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indeed it is monosourced and seems a touch puffed and promotional. I wasn't able to find meaningful sources for it online with ease and seems unnoteworthy. It's questionable that it was undeleted and not improved at all, probably because it can't be. Tautomers (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2021 (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

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Websites&oldid=1030234909"