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

IDP Hotcourses

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

This should be merged with Hotcourses Group which is the original name of the organization before being sold and rebranded. Article title can be changed to the current name after the merge Ednabrenze (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Removed from the deletion sorting list for Academics and educators as this is not a person. Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nomination Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikida

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

No any WP:RS. Not meet WP:GNG. HumanRight 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could someone assess the reliability of the sources? Are they mainstream newspapers? There’s no requirement that references be in English. Is it a fork of Persian Wikipedia? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the sources says that it was set up in opposition to “Zionist Wikipedia”. I can’t find any additional coverage in reliable sources and what is in the article isn’t sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwebantu

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are from blogs, press releases, or user-generated content, which do not establish encyclopedic notability. The tone is promotional and may reflect a conflict of interest. Without multiple independent in-depth sources, this article does not warrant a standalone entry. Icem4k (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly sources analyze this media source as a major news source for Zambia, for better or worse. See [1], [2]. The article is in dire need of cleanup but there are fortunately a lot of scholarly sources with which to write a balanced article. Probably the company's marketing team will not like the article that gets written though. Marked with cleanup tags; I may be able to help clean this once the AfD is over. FalconK (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One academic paper, no matter how well-researched, is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability per WP:GNG. There's no mainstream or sustained coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Mwebantu is not profiled by any major media outlets, has no significant awards, and no long-term impact demonstrated in third-party sources. Cleanup cannot substitute for notability.--THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cleanup and notability are orthogonal, but I suspect the desire to delete this article is in large part due to the absolute mess the article is. The sources discussing it, many of which are very critical of its coverage, are considerably more than one single academic paper. I found two after searching for less than 5 minutes. It is also treated in [3], and described in Matambo, E. (2025). Zambia's Youths and the 2021 General Election. I would agree it is marginal and the article would be both completely different from this one and much shorter, but unfortunately this site seems to be a reasonably major part of Zambia's media landscape. FalconK (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources provided in this discussion. When determining WP:GNG notability, one doesn't even need to look at the content of the article per WP:CONTN. Subject notability is independent of the article.

I will also throw in [4] and [5] for consideration. More sources also likely exist in other languages.

- Ike Lek (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I say delete cause Based on the sources presented in this discussion so far is, Mwebantu appears to have some coverage in scholarly and academics publications that analyze its role in Zambias media landscape. However, the question will always remains whether this coverage is sufficiently significant, independent, and reliable to meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for a stand alone article on wiki. That is why i say delete. --Chise95 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElgooG

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable website. The lead lists the definition of a term like a disambiguation page but then all headings list possible meanings. Is this meant to be a page about elgoog.im or Google mirrors? Delete for lack of notability (the added template suggests that the page is about elgoog.im). thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's definitely history for this Google mirror. I know that's an argument to avoid but for something more than 20 years ago with 2 previous AfDs, let's see if any substance holds for today. I don't agree with the weird disambiguation because it's explaining the same website. For instance, a random look into the past edits shows that: Special:Permalink/199047655. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is very little information to expand upon compared to the average Wikipedia article. Other sites with similar names were probably added over time and appear to be different sites from the original. Vacosea (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this website's usage for bypassing Internet censorship in China makes it noteworthy.

2001:8003:1C02:E900:64EC:6E8C:5887:A475 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficient coverage and notability for a standalone article though? Vacosea (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. 2001:8003:1C02:E900:2D39:9F43:F796:1073 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: what sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is a not non notable website? The ElgooG is a notable website that's have a easter egg by Google or not. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The New Scientist article is fine (now in the article), also have this [6] discussing how it was used to avoid censorship. Should be enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also discussed here [7] and [8] Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions