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

Twoblade

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

Promotional article about something of dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed this is probably WP:TOOSOON, but if this article is kept, it absolutely needs a hatnote to cover the far more notable 2Blades. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no references independent of the subject to establish notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline WP:A7 material. no claim to notability. Sohom (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's promotion for a non-notable product. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TrustRadius

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

Non-notable tech company. Page is promotional, created by account that I strongly suspect was paid. I can't find any RSs amongst the references, which all appear to me to be superficial, insincere or average brief coverage. Company is WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Websites, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM is a correct assessment. All sources are trivial except the interview, which is not independent. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Saw this during new page review and didn't have time to a full BEFORE, but I agree with the nominator's assessment. No evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazilian Report

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

Tagged for notability for many months but unimproved, lack of in depth independent sourcing means notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Brazil. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero notability, clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – tried searching newpapers for news of its founding or something like that. Didn't find nothing. As it stands only I think a blog article even tries to assert notability. (here from wikiproject Brazil) User:D Kirlston - talk 21:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV and reads as WP:PROMO Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DraCor

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

I see nothing independent that suggests this meets WP:NCORP. No mentions anywhere and only a single WP:ZENODO PDF. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, Websites, Europe, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - see Bibliography of Research Actively Using DraCor in the article's External Links section. There are dozens of independent, reliable references listed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A. B. From the ones I spot checked, most of the research that uses DraCor also provides independent, secondary SIGCOV of it as a tool (e.g. evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, describing its features). This appears to be a widely used corpus in computational drama studies and has been discussed extensively in the research literature. MCE89 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but there are independent secondary sources for this. Worst case there is always a merge. Archrogue (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all of the sources in that bibliography give sigcov but a decent amount do, which is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsport.ba

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

Not a notable site. No significant coverage cited or available. The only significant coverage is for the football award that the site organized for some years; it might be reasonable to redirect to that article, Idol Nacije. — Moriwen (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Moriwen (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Basketball, Football, Handball, and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unclear, but there are some notes on the web it might be under the Bridgepoint Group. With the rather notable and wealthy Sébastien Rohart (who has no article) behind it. However it's a little unclear. WP:INHERENTWEB may apply for deletion. However I am just going to stick to an Abstain for a non-consensus vote as the website has 300,000k daily visitors. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable website. Angryapathy (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, without the redirect. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping Seattle: Buildings

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

Non-notable local government website. PROD previously declined with a suggestion to merge the content somewhere, but there's no clear place to merge it to -- there's no article for Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (the agency that runs the website) and it would be WP:UNDUE in the main Seattle or even Government and politics of Seattle articles. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the existing references appear to pass GNG, with the King5, GeekWire, and WaPo sites. Have you been able to access and review these? Linkrot appears to have claimed one, and another is paywalled for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post article has two sentences: Seattle, though, has already built a platform tracking new real-estate projects that hints at what could be possible. Projects that have to go through a design review are all mapped by the city here, with each one linked to a timeline, images and public documents. Not exactly WP:SIGCOV. King 5, KPLU, and CityLab are all just regurgitating the press release announcing the website, which also doesn't count towards notability. GeekWire is the only one that comes close, but that article is much more about Seattle in Progress than Shaping Seattle. I haven't been able to find anything else that counts towards notability either, with all of the coverage just being "hey, this exists" regurgitations of the press release from 2015 -- nothing from the decade since then. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huijiwiki

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources I found were passing mentions and unreliable sources. Huijiwiki (simplified Chinese: 灰机wiki; traditional Chinese: 灰機wiki; lit. 'Gray Machine Wiki') does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or not reliable enough. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for websites. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Huijiwiki is cited in multiple papers:

吕明芳 (2019). 功能对等视角下游戏本地化翻译策略探讨与反思 ——以游戏《文明Ⅵ》为例 [A Study and Reflection on Game Localization Translation Strategies from the Perspective of Functional Equivalence -- Taking the Game "Civilization VI" as an Example] (Thesis). Beijing Foreign Studies University. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

杨玲 (2018). 《临高启明》与当代幻想文学中的世界建构 [The World Construction of Lingao Qiming and Contemporary Fantasy Literature]. 济宁学院学报. 39 (1): 51–56. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

刘显. 科幻小说《三体》及改编作品的故事世界研究 [A Study on the Story World of the Science Fiction Novel The Three-Body Problem and its Adaptations] (Thesis). Retrieved 2025-05-01.

郭小嘉 (2022). 论《三体Ⅱ·黑暗森林》日译本的文化意象传递 [On the Transmission of Cultural Images in the Japanese Translation of The Three-Body Problem II: The Dark Forest] (Thesis). 黑龙江大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王昊岚 (2023). MMORPG及其演变分析 ——以《最终幻想》系列为例 [Analysis of MMORPG and Its Evolution -- Taking the Final Fantasy Series as an Example] (Thesis). 天津大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王依婷 (2021-11-19). "zh:审美认同与孙悟空视觉形象的海外流布" [Aesthetic Identity and the Overseas Spread of the Visual Image of Sun Wukong]. 中外文论2021. “跨文化视野下文艺理论批评前沿问题”研讨会暨中国中外文艺理论学会第18届年会. Guilin. pp. 135–150. doi:10.26914/c.cnkihy.2021.083048. Retrieved 2025-05-01. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these sources 内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs). Do these sources merely cite Huijiwiki, or do they also discuss Huijiwiki "directly and detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline)? Cunard (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be enough to support keeping the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Unfortunately there is no detailed introduction to huijiwiki. They either directly quote or use its content, or use it as a reference—you can tell from the titles of these articles that they are studies of fictional works.

From my personal perspective, this wiki seems to be a (relatively successful) Chinese version of Fandom, at least in terms of fan content, as they are used in journals. I guess that is because in China there lacks other popular websites for creating fandom sub-wikis. But the wiki it does lack sufficient coverage. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article reposted by the China Digital Science and Technology Museum, originally published in Science Fiction World (the oldest and most popular science fiction magazine & sci-fi book publisher of PRC):

"The 'Lord of the Rings Chinese Wiki' was founded in 2015 by Ser Gawen, the founder of HuijiWiki. Hosted on the HuijiWiki platform, it is an encyclopedia website built entirely by a self-organized group of enthusiasts, dedicated to compiling entries on everything related to J.R.R. Tolkien. The wiki's editing team aims to establish China's premier Tolkien database, providing readers with comprehensive, fact-based, and reliably sourced information. Currently, the site features over three thousand entries, generally sufficient to meet the needs for information lookup."

内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs), thank you for your research! The coverage in Science Fiction World is a great find. I am striking my support for deletion and will be neutral for now. If there is a second source that provides significant coverage like this, I would switch to supporting retention as the website would meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an author of the article, someone who cited some would make me nominate to keep the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard

Ok, finally I found a speech given by the author of the novel Lingao Qiming at Peking University was published in the journal Internet Literature Review (ISSN: 2096-384X):

Let me also discuss how I utilize fanfiction for 'crowdsourced writing'. We specifically set up a Wikipedia-like platform called 'Lingao Qiming Huijiwiki', which contains roughly over 8 million characters of fanfiction.

吹牛者 (2017). "《临高启明》与互联网时代的写作——吹牛者在北大的讲座". 网络文学评论 (3): 40–45. Retrieved 2025-05-08. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. The quote is a brief mention in a single sentence of Huijiwiki. Does the author discuss Huijiwiki in more detail than what has been quoted? Also, the author might not be considered independent enough from the website as the author used the website to set up a platform. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to wikifarm as that seems like a better choice considering that sourcing is difficult to establish notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions