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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Websites.

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[edit]

John Englart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Websites, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledgie[edit]

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

I'm unable to deorphan this article and upon closer inspection, the article doesn't seem to pass any of the points of WP:GNG. The sources are mainly self-published sources (WP:RSSELF), and the secondary sources are blog posts (possibly falling under WP:USERG), with the only news coverage being hyperlocal. Sources 1 and 2 are blog posts. Sources 3, 5, 7, and 8 are self-published blog posts (with source 3 being a Tweet). Source 4 is from KC Free Press, which seems to be a hyperlocal news organization (but I would say it's closer to a blog). Source 6 links to the topic's GitHub page. Sources 9 and 10 link to the home page to websites, so are not even sources for anything in the article. My research on this topic results in user-generated blog posts, hyper-local news coverage or original sources (such as their website or their GitHub). BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about people named Pledgie, nothing for this website. Sources used aren't adequate, blogs or primary sources, download sites and the like. This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impericon[edit]

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

Has been completely unsourced for at least 5 years now. Found no independent sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NWEB as there is no independent coverage about it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the page Impericon because does not claim notability and not any significant coverage found. 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amazon Inc.: per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FightBrightTigh: Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV[edit]

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [1] [2], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a ~~weakest keep~~. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions[edit]