Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

Drive.com.au

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

Suggesting a redirect to Fairfax Media § 2014 to 2018, with potentially some content merged to that section. I cannot find anything else useful, and keeping in mind that The Sydney Morning Herald is not independent of Fairfax, I find it unlikely this would benefit from a standalone page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Australia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I almost AfD'ed this myself (see page history) but given the number of our articles using this site (validly) as a source, I considered instead that it made the grade for keeping. Being a stub is not in itself a deletion reason, even if it's not expanded immediately. Especially as this article is only a couple of weeks old and it does have adequate sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a delete though, and I never mentioned being a stub, so you're putting words in my mouth with that one. I did read what you and 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco were doing in the history, I don't believe this is suited for a standalone page, and being cited by Wikipedia is not a valid reason to keep an article. Being quoted in the media is in no way adequate sourcing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least 2 in depth sources to meet WP:GNG and I am not seeing this at all. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KipTalk

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

(NPP action) Three of the cited sources (Business Insider, Similarweb, and Standard) are actually about Twitter, and don't mention a "KipTalk". All other citations are to a single website, kampalareports.com. I think this lies somewhere between hoax and spam. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only hits are their website, then various social media sites. There are no mentions in Gnews. This doesn't appear to be a hoax, but no sourcing that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IslamPidia

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

Despite the reference bombing, the many citations are a combination of unreliable sources, directory listings, or brief mentions of the subject (at best, a fair few don't mention it at all). Upon searching, I cannot find better available reference material, so I believe that this website is not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no independent and secondary sources. Mehedi Abedin 20:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMX Mail

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

A before struggles to find any in-depth coverage in independent sources fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GMX was a very popular email service in Germany in the early 2000s. Horst-Dieter Radke's 2004 book GMX: Mail und mehr is entirely about GMX webmail, and several other Markt+Technik-published books have shorter sections on GMX. ZDNet Deutschland reported on security problems and missing email in 2000. It'd be worth checking archives for German computer magazines com! and c't as well, if anyone's got access to them (coverage on IA is spotty, but it appears that c't 2011 issue 5 had a discussion of GMX's mail services for mobile phones, for example). Adam Sampson (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean

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

A draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..

Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.

I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.

Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, so that whatever text is needed for the class assignment can be readded without harm. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as draft, Interested to know about the title UzbukUdash (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGlue

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one press release mentioning this...whatever it is...could be found. As for the parent company, I can find websites and database entries for several entities named In4, but it's not clear any of them have any connection to the In4 in the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions