Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:58, 2 January 2024

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOceans

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refbombed, but basically there's a single good ref: [1]. [2] is reputable but isn't WP:SIGCOV, and the rest is non-notable awards, or non-independent papers by the founder. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Software, and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Saltwire seems like a press release as well. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 09:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noon (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete improve it Jomaxwell (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA came in. I will look at the references. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete – Yeah, routine coverage. WP:TOOSOON. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy redirect to Public Investment Fund. IgelRM (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess argument on Redirect suggestion. But I don't see a mention of the company at the proposed target article page nor mention of the investment fund on the company article so I'm not sure a Redirect makes sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Page could be recreated once the company attains more notability.TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (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 delete‎. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxForums.org

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

No evidence of notability. Mentions in Google Books seem to be trivial and not significant coverage. I can only find one source, and that's only about a data breach. I doubt one article about a data breach that happened to a website makes it notable. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A product of the times when notability guidelines was lax, no source for it either. Non-notable like most forums. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable due to no significant coverage - WP:GNG. Only found an outdated post on a Wikia/"Fandom" page and a reddit article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, not seeing much by way of sources. No results in my newspapers.com search and basically nothing of quality in the first few pages of Google search. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I also could only find trivial coverage of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and a Google search only shows trivial mentions of the site. There is also only one reference in the article which is something about a data breach. FlutterDash344 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2024 (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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human Age

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

Non-notable defunct European browser game with a page that largely hasn't changed in over a decade. The sourcelist is comprised of the browser game's site and other host sites with no reliable secondary sources or evidence of actual commentary on the game. Lack of publisher information and the potential for WP:NONENG sources to be out there makes it difficult to find anything on this title for a WP:BEFORE. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh joy, they really picked a fantastic name to search for without other stuff popping up. Honestly, this is WP:TNT regardless of whether it is notable. There isn't a single reliable source. If the game is notable, it needs to be rewritten and go through AfC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It should probably be disambiguated immediately afterwards, as things like Anthropocene and Ages of Man are also equivalent primary topics for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. A disambiguation page would be useful but it would need to be created separately at Human age. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:27, 2 January 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Flutter Entertainment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjarabet

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. References are routine business news, many company event listings and non-specific news scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (country). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious promo attempt, completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flutter Entertainment as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flutter Entertainment as WP:ATD. Per nom and above, fails GNG and NCORP. // Timothy :: talk 08:26, 30 December 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aukro.bg

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

This article was created in 2010, and since then, there's been no indication that the subject is actually notable. Google gives limited sources. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Bulgaria. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it evidently operated in several central and Eastern European countries for a while before being taken over but I’m not seeing anything to suggest notability. Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article about the brand in that country with some sources, but I find nothing for Bulgaria. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a declined prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't pass the WP:GNG. Cruzdoze (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (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. Editors showed consensus to keep, in conjunction with the previous nomination of a WP:SNOWBALL keep. Editors noted that renaming/changing the page to Museum of the Game would be appropriate. I agree. I will do that now, please feel free to contributeHDMI#Licensing‎. TLA (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killer List of Videogames

AfDs for this article:

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

The site got a ton of brief mentions from reliable sources (1 2 3 4 5), but no significant coverage. QuietCicada - Talk 15:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. QuietCicada - Talk 15:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's likely that Museum of the Game is notable even if this site isn't. I found a full article on it in this magazine, would not be surprised if there were more. This could be a case of "make a separate article and merge this into it". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredibly Weak Keep That would be more in the scope of splitting which is not covered by afd. Mabye page could be reworked into what you are describing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ideally, rename to "Museum of the Game". Sources I found: maybe sigcov: [3] non sigcov: [4] [5]. According to [6]: "The International Arcade Museum® (IAM) of the Museum of the Game™ is the world's largest museum [...] The KLOV®; (Killer List of Videogames) and Museum of the Video Game™, its video-game divisions" so it seems the "Museum of the Video Game" is just a branch of the main company. I found two other brief mentions in sources looking through internet archive: [7] [8] While WP:INHERITORG applies, there are almost certainly more offline sources, and the nominated article's content can easily be put into a relevant section. As a bonus, having a page about the museum will enable its inclusion on List of video game museums. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Renaming from the website to the organization is also fine. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

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

All passing mentions or refs to the cite itself. There are some hits on a WP:BEFORE but nothing that seems to meet WP:SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I am puzzled that this website can be nominated again for deletion for its notability. I just read through the references listed in the article for deletion and I read that the website is cited as a reliable source in published books, academic works and mainstream magazines. After a quick search, I found some magazines and newspapers that cite Sputnikmusic as a reliable source (The Florida Times-Union [9], Classic Rock [10], Verve [11], Loudwire [12]). The website is still listed among the generally reliable sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and in the Metacritic engine. My best guess is that all the parameters for notability are checked. Lewismaster (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Sputnik is reliable, but I'm not sure about notability. The sources in the article and the ones that you found are very short passing mentions, mostly in articles or books that summarize an album or band's reception with critics and fans, or which namecheck music review websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we are talking about a website which provides musical info and reviews, I think that it could also be important to know how much it is consulted, read and used as a source to determine its notability. I checked Sputnikmusic's web traffic with this free app [13] and compared it with some of the websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Sputnikmusic's traffic amounts to 42,5K monthly accesses, which is very low in comparison with AllMusic or Rolling Stone, in the same range of Rock Hard and Metal Storm's websites and much higher than Uncut, Rock Sound, The Wire and Metal Forces'. Sputnikmusic is cited in about 400 articles on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? No. For example, jazzdisco.org is a reliable, and frequently cited source, but fails WP:NWEB Mach61 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above. A lot of websites, books and articles are reliable sources but aren't notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is very little, there is some coverage of the website in the books, and I've added another.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning keep, but had to trim some trivia. The section "Stratification and rating systems" needs heavy trimming. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPERIODICALS #4. I can find at least 30 scholarly books that cite this website. As I say every time a website like this is nominated, rarely do people write articles about niche, but reputable publications. That's why you always look for how often it is cited in its field, similar to WP:NPROFESSOR. Furthermore, I will always maintain that it is valuable for a reliable source used on hundreds of Wikipedia to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with this !vote by Why? I Ask. It is evident (and likely incontrovertible) that Sputnikmusic is both highly cited and reputable, and invoking WP:NPERIODICALS is valid. Sputnikmusic is evidently not an inconsequential website, and removing this article from the encyclopedia is, in my view, detrimental to the project. Furthermore we are in the business of presuming notability; being highly cited in secondary reputable sources is a very good indication, and in this case far better than trying to base notability on users trying to do increasingly flawed google searches which may, or may not, find requisite evidence. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2024 (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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit

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

Many of the sources in the article don't seem to have significant coverage, just mentions of partnerships or new features. The entire features section is only referenced by primary sources, with one section not referenced at all. I believe some sections also seem like promo. Lewcm Talk to me! 15:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems not like just simple promo. Why contributors made Features paragraph based only on primary sources? #5 sources (WSJ) does not even mention the company. Not passed WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Vinzaretti (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Confirmed sock and struck. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone. Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bybit is a top 6 of worldwide crypto exchange with a trading volume of almost 4billion dollars in 24h.[14] It is one of the top exchanges in the world and already translated in 7 languages. People that want to learn about the top exchanges might find this wiki article very useful. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per explanation from HighKing⁺⁺. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only news coverage I could find is company-issued press releases. No in-depth reliable secondary coverage, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 14 January 2024 (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 merge‎ to Wiki hosting service. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki hosting services

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

For an initial personal disclaimer, I am not a Wikipedia regular but I am an editor on other wiki projects and wiki farms. If WP:PROMOTION is considered this page clearly reads like a promotional page and the criteria for comparison seems to be meant to allow readers to choose one of the services for their wiki - which is What Wikipedia is not. I do not see how this page can be read as anything else than a biased guide for users to choose their preferred wiki host for their project rather than an article that belongs on an encyclopedic project. What other purpose does this page realistically serve?

The title itself "Comparison of wiki hosting services" is very misleading as it should really be "Comparison of notable wiki hosting services" which does not make sense as an article anyway and does not seem to adhere to the spirit of WP:NPOV by selectively listing only wiki farms that already have a Wikipedia article. It is hard to see the usefulness of a page that compares an extremely limited amount of wiki hosting services. There is also a refusal to accept any non-notable companies themselves, even though this is permitted by this policy as I understand it.

The MediaWiki.org version is more complete and fair and I argue here that a page like this has nothing to do on Wikpedia and is better suited for MediaWiki.org only. JaredFForester (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a notability issue with the article? What you have brought up so far are issues that can be fixed without deletion (WP:Deletion is not cleanup) Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they can be fixed I have not seen a willingness to do so. After my original edit was rejected I took a look at the history and uncovered a very frequent pattern of new users adding entries and them being removed on the basis that only notable ones are added even though as I have said in my deletion argument the way I understand the lists policy is that there is no such rule. JaredFForester (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — JaredFForester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many comparisons of sites/software/services on Wikipedia. If different features/characteristics should be compared, that's something that can be addressed on the article talk page (or by just fixing it). Wikipedia has several kinds of lists. Most are lists of examples rather than exhaustive lists, and as such use some version of WP:N as criteria for which examples to include. I don't recall where it's documented, but there's definitely a preference against including the word "notable" in the article title, since it's kind of a jargon term on Wikipedia and because that's kind of the default. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference in those instances is that a lot of the non-notable ones are very niche and unused while in the case of wiki hosting services there are a lot of very popular wiki hosting services that are not mentioned. Also, some of the other lists do list companies/sites that do not have Wikipedia articles. I believe that in terms of wiki hosting there is a large number of alternative websites that are not listed and the page listing such a small number of hosting sites has little use. JaredFForester (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid navigational list and information list as well. Category:Wiki farms has additional things that can be added to it. Dream Focus 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is its encyclopedic value though? And I must disagree that it can be described as a valid list when it lists 5 'notable' wiki hosts while 100 exist. In other areas, such as search engines, the amount of other wiki hosts is negligible and they niche services. That is not true for the alternate wiki hosting services and if editors consider that this page should not be deleted I would still think the very least that could be done is allow the addition of other services even if they do not have standalone articles since there is no policy which explicitly disallows this practice. JaredFForester (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article previously had other things listed which don't have articles, someone erased them. It was previously six times larger. Dream Focus 11:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case if the outcome is to keep I would encourage an administrator to assert that there is no rule preventing listing non-notable articles. JaredFForester (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it only lists the notable ones so rename it to Comparison of notable wiki hosting services 72.94.190.201 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This request for deletion seems to stem from your frustration that several of your edits to the article have been reverted. That sounds a bit like being a little bit sour rather than having an actual reason for the article being deleted. -- Original Authority (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in that respect but the reason behind this is because I was surprised that it is necessary to have an existing article (which is not in any policy) in order to add it to the list. The reason I cite for opening this is exactly that. If there was no "only notable" rule invented specifically for this page there would be less of an argument for deletion. JaredFForester (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK or Draftify to revise the scope and cleanup the list.

Out of 5 listed services only Fandom (website) fits the description, the rest are examples of Groupware software. Out of these four groupware products only Confluence (software) and PBwiki have a secondary source that positions the software as a wiki hosting service:Sankar (2009). This source is extremely weak as it also calls Google Sites a 'structured wiki' (whatever that means), and refers to online spreadsheets and calendars as 'wikis' too. More importantly, when introducing the list it mentions wikimatrix.com, a defunct website that used to call mention of Confluence and other products on its list sponsored listings. The article in the current form is effectively a WP:CFORK of the List of collaborative software, featuring Confluence possibly because it was called a wiki hosting on a sponsored listing website.

I agree that 'only notable' is a reasonable criteria for inclusion in a navigational list that doesn't meet WP:NLIST criteria but, with apparently only 1 entry appropriately sourced, I'm failing to see the navigational value of this list. I'm hesitant of considering other alternatives for deletion as it's unclear what independent secondary sources can be used to clean it up. Category:Wiki farms proposed above simply repeats the sponsored listings from wikimatrix.com reprinted in the aforementioned Sankar (2009). Another source, referenced in the article, wikimatrix.org, is effectively a personal homepage and doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with a partial merge with Wiki hosting service if it helps to form a consensus. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wiki hosting service and trim to notable entries. IgelRM (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by only allowing 'options with pages' you automatically create, regardless if it is intentional or not, a promotion which is against Wikipedias rules. Comparisons in general on Wikipedia are in my opinion only justified when every well known party is included which is here clearly not. Other comparison sites work since all notable and important public parties are listed here where in this case its not. Additionally few points on this existing comparison are flawed and vague, as an example what do you exactly mean with "subdomain" (In POV of a user not knowing much). And additionally some points are straightly false and some are written like advertisements. So its better to delete it. G Utopia (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — G Utopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's not. That's standard for Wikipedia lists, and not what Wikipedia means by promotion. I note this AfD was opened by a single-purpose account attempting to add their own site to the list and created the deletion nomination when it was removed per standard procedure. Now it's attracting more single-purpose accounts to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiTide is definitely not the nominator's "own site". SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. While the current entries are no doubt biased in what seems an attempt to maintain a clear inclusion criteria (each entry having their own Wikipedia article), which could be revisited on a discussion on its talk page, I can see a clear informational value of the article as it is. The single-purpose account nature of the nominator who themselves agreed the nomination is in part due to frustration about being reverted, also makes the AfD nomination weaker. Work would be best spent, in my opinion, writing articles for other notable wiki farm services, which makes adding them to this list/comparison article less controversial. Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm not seeing a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: This list is very short, listing only five hosting services, and as PaulT2022 says it seems that of these, only Fandom is actually a wiki host as opposed to collaborative software, so there's arguably only one wiki host listed. I don't think this should be kept as is, leaving three options - either delete the list, partially merge it to Wiki hosting service (which is also short), or expand it to include more wiki hosts. In the latter case, it's unlikely that any other wiki host qualifies for a Wikipedia article, given that articles on at least two of the most popular, Miraheze and Wikidot, have been deleted for lack of notability in the past (some wikis hosted on these sites are notable but apparently not the hosting sites themselves, which makes sense). Additionally, MediaWiki.org already has a more complete list of MediaWiki hosting services specifically. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like this has been said many times: "the content should be expanded" is not a delete rationale. "The content should be reduced" is not a delete rationale. "The article needs to be cleaned up" is not a delete rationale. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. jp×g 🗯️ 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wiki hosting service. "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" even when notability isn't in doubt, and this seems like a good case for using that discretion: it doesn't help readers to keep a five-entry list separate from a four-paragraph article. Obviously this can be revisited if the combined article ever becomes so long a split is needed, but there's no prospect of that happening anytime soon (especially since the list is rightly being limited to entries with some modicum of notability). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proposer seems to be arguing for a delete because it needs to be renamed (?) as well as admittedly having made this to be POINTy in one of the above replies DarmaniLink (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Extraordinary. Both articles are short and there seems to be no need for a separate article. Most “delete” !votes above seem to have invalid rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as fair alternative to deletion. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeepLearning.AI

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

Smells of spam, wonderful spam. Cited sources are prehistoric, nothing not self published floats to the surface. Ihave removed some of the mor ridiculous 'content' from this article, btw. TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only passing mentions, not enough reliable independent coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some further references on notability. The OP of the AFD very much doesn't use the neutral language that they envision for the article itself (furthermore typos). There is no issue with the article, the subject is of note, and most sources are from 2023, one is from 2017 when the program was founded, hardly "prehistoric". 191.102.59.2 (talk)

replying to I added some further references on notability. Seeing on the contributions, you haven't edited the nominated article. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Article is of dubious notability, There are multiple hits on Google news, and about that the subject corporated with Coursera and AWS to launch programs. Beyond that are mentions. It is unclear whether the sources passes WP:GNG or not. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement and it doesn't seem notable. Of the sources, one predates the course, two are just primary sources for course description, one is a pseudonymous review, and the Lewkowicz and Lucariello articles are written like a press release. A quick search doesn't turn up anything better. I don't see this article ever being anything other than an advertisement and/or a reproduction of the course descriptions. Ligaturama (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although DeepLearning.ai is not significant in and of itself, it is a notable course within Coursera. It may find a better place as a shortened summary on the Coursera page. Ardent Vim (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:1900:116B:ED5F:16C5:82CF:2421 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. There's no significant coverage about it online. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 2 January 2024 (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

SoccerCleats101 (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Websites==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EOceans}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noon_(company)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinuxForums.org}}