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

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 Future plc. Any sourceable content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MusicRadar

AfDs for this article:

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

This (barely) survived AfD back in 2008, but it's had 15 years to improve since then and hasn't; it's still sourced entirely to itself. This wouldn't be a routine deletion—because a lot of Wikipedia articles reference it, outright deletion would leave a huge trail of redlinks—but IMO it should be redirected to Future plc. (This is a topic on which it's very hard to do a viable WP:BEFORE, as any search on it brings up a zillion Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't find any significant coverage of this specific website as opposed to coverage of content hosted on it.) ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Future plc. There is no reason any of this information should be lost in the process; taken together it will still be a rather small section of the merge target. BD2412 T 06:16, 26 February 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISketch

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss iSketch in-depth. I see brief mentions, and that's it. The one reference in the article doesn't mention iSketch, at all. -- Mike 🗩 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to have been a number of sites mentioned in the first AfD from 15+ years ago. All of them I checked seem to be dead. Anyone able to go Internet Archive diving for them? Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above a number of sites in the previous AFD demonstrated notability, for example CNN Review: The all-star team of online games, PC World: An Online Doodle Dandy, AskMen.com The Best & Coolest Sites Around, also it might be worth searching the PC Magazine archives on archive.org, for example PC Zone WEBGAME of the month Piecesofuk (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also saw some of these. For me, they mostly fail WP:SIGCOV. The CNN reference and the PC World reference is only one paragraph. AskMen is two sentences. PC Zone would qualify, I think, but that is still only one reference with significant coverage. -- Mike 🗩 20:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see much difference between the CNN and PC Zone sources: here's the CNN source as published in PC World (January 2002) https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bd9a9c53-25f7-408f-aedc-9f4ace0d54e5%40redis Here's a couple more mini reviews from the Evening Herald (Dublin) - Wednesday 18 April 2001 and the Irish Independent - Monday 11 September 2000 Piecesofuk (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked through the references and I think there's enough information about the game to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion using said sources. I think when determining WP:SIGCOV we should always consider if the amount of information extracted from all the sources involving the subject would be enough to write a decently sized article about it, as opposed to a permastub. Given these sources, I believe it meets GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm not in love with the quality of sourcing, but it's not disqualifying. Also, this source [1]. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There aren't a *lot* of surviving sources, but they're clearly reliable and have sufficient context. Jordan117 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2023 (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. Despite the clear numerical majority that voted to keep this article, I was very close to closing this discussion with a consensus to delete. The primary issue is finding sources that establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. There are clearly plenty of sources that establish the existence of MovieWeb, but very few (if any) that establish its notability. The only reason I didn't close with a consensus to delete is because there were a few borderline sources provided that covered the subject in a tenuous way, but there is plenty of room to argue that these sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. My recommendation would be to give the proponents of this article a few months to dig up better sources, and then nominate it for deletion again after some time has passed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MovieWeb

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

Fails WP:GNG. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it has third party mentions from strong sources such as the LA Times, it needs expanding but I don't believe it warrants deletion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has mentions, and some sites quote its reviews, but I don't find anything substantial about it. It seems to be a useful source of movie reviews of a popular nature. Compare this to the information about Rotten Tomatoes - well, no comparison. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article had many more substantial citations before it was gutted in April 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkwarriorblake. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a weak article in its current form, and needs a lot of work, but I agree that a sufficient number of verifiable secondary sources exists to lean strongly toward WP:WEBCRIT and to avoid deletion. Ppt91 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to cite those sources here so we can see what you are using for your evaluation. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but MovieWeb has been mentioned (or used) in several third party reliable sources. They must feel they are notable enough to repost interviews that MovieWeb has done — The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire And here the The Hollywood Reporter uses them as a source for their reporting. Mike Allen 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those is a short (often less than an entire sentence) quote from a MovieWeb interview. I think it's clear that people use MovieWeb to look up information about movies, but we still need significant, 3rd party sources for the WP article. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need improvement but Afd is not cleanup. Longstanding notable film website - and there are secondary sources available - some of which I have added. Also - Movieweb has been a longstanding entry within Plunkett's Entertainment & Media Industry Almanac[2] ResonantDis_tortion 07:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added Business Wire, but that is an outlet for press releases, and not an independent source. There is not one substantive, independent source for this web site. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed Business Wire is a press release that does not establish WP:GNG - but I added more refs including a (admittedly short) review of the MovieWeb site from the Los Angeles Times. ResonantDis_tortion 17:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That short review is 6 sentences. And so far it's the longest info about MovieWeb in an independent source. Deseret news 404's, unfortunately. The Directory of Web Sites is 2 sentences. The LA Times has 3 sentences of which one is: "Though the site is packed with inane fluff, it does distinguish between high- and low-bandwidth pages." So in spite of folks above saying that this is an essential movie site, we still do not have an independent source that concurs. If the non-independent sources (the vast majority here) were removed there would be almost no sourced content in this article. I don't see how it can be kept under those circumstances. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it manages to scrape by GNG with this coverage about them being sued.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC) These books 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 also have some coverage.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of those books is a listing in a list of web sites, maybe 25 words at most. (Actually, one is mention that is not even a full sentence.) The one that is longer is a short article in PC magazine, which Google probably digitized from a bound volume. I don't think that being sued (and that article is less than a page) achieves notability. Again, I am surprised at the advocacy for this article without addressing the actual notability guidelines. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having coverage in a reliable publication that you got sued indicates notability. And an article being digitized by Google has no bearing or relevancy to anything unless you're arguing that PC magazine is unreliable in the first place.★Trekker (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references offered as "coverage" are one-liners. When asked to provide evidence of notability it is best to pick two or three that do the job, rather than including lots that don't add anything. The two paragraphs in this one4 are located in the "special advertising section" and are clearly not independent. BruceThomson (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (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. I'm closing this as No consensus. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Digitalis

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

Online music magazine fails per WP:NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Primary references, trivial coverage in fellow magazines, no indication of notability in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, Websites, and Oklahoma. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which references you're referring too. If you look you can clearly see they've received feature coverage in several notable sources, not just "fellow magazines". Bugfingers (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we'd consider Aquarium Drunkard a RS. The NYTimes only mentions the site in passing, rest are about the same. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Pitchfork? The Wire? Bugfingers (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a music related blog but, off course not reliable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you can check this list of reliable sources for music related articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources

Pitchfork and The Wire are both listed here, both sites which have featured Foxy Digitalis beyond a passing mention. KEEP Bugfingers (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to an article on Brad Rose or Digitalis Records. Much of the discussion above is factually incorrect. Pitchfork, for instance, is published by Condé Nast, The Wire is a major British music magazine (print and digital). Unambiguously reliable. That said, there is much more significant coverage of founder Brad Rose as a musician (brief search: one review, Irish magazine feature) or of his label (e.g., Resident Advisor feature, and less about the zine itself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and consider your decision in light of the suggestion to retitle and refocus the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep or Move: This article probably needs some work, but I think there's enough coverage per others comments above. I'd also support the above move suggestion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2023 (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