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

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 Speedy delete per author request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Challonge

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

This feels "known but not notable" and fails WP:NCORP. The sources are either non-independent (company website, acquisition announcement) or trivial coverage (examples of tournaments using Challonge). I couldn't find any reviews, or RS writing about comparisons of tournament bracket generators, which we would probably need for an NCORP pass here. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and Indiana. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author. It was an oversight by me to move this to main space. I will keep a draft around my user space if anything does comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:49, 22 April 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 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. ✗plicit 04:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay.co.nz

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

No demonstrated notability. In a web search and investigation of available newspapers, only two potential sources were found: a survey output which did not discuss the website, but did include it in a list of websites when asking gay men about their use of various websites (PDF), and a guide book with only the line “Provides travel information aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual visitors, and vets businesses for standards of service and hospitality.” (see in book search: [1]). Personally, I do not see this as sufficient to meet “significant coverage”. For comparison, a similar site, gaynz.com, did at some point at least gain coverage in NZ media: [2] — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Websites. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 06:14, 25 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESC Reporter

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

Aside from the page having seemingly been created by the editor in chief (note them sharing the exact same name), I can find no claim of notability nor any sigcov; the Kyiv Post article is just a link to one of their interviews, the Kamaliya website is not notable, the Ukrainian Pravda mentions an interview they did in one line and being accredited as fan media by the EBU does not grant notability; many small blogs get accredited but are not notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Music. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable — IмSтevan ^talk 16:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject of the article fails on several notability counts, including WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NWEB. The site's "achievements" are not particularly notable, given that Eurovision accreditation for fan media can be applied for by anyone and that interviews held with artists are common across a large swathe of media organisations, many of which do not satisfy Wikipedia notability policies. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Europe, Denmark, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article by COI editor about a glorified (now defunct) blog without any independent significant coverage. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as explained by Sims2aholic8, does not satisfy the notability policies of Wikipedia. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:10, 19 April 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 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. ✗plicit 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lahyani

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

Contested draftification (essentially copy/pasted back from Draft:Michael Lahyani). Borderline A7/G11 IMO, no real coverage beyond the standard SPIP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 25 April 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 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MorphThing

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert of non-notable (only trivial coverage) website. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything beyond name checks. We can't have an article exclusively sourced to primary, first-party sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 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 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary, user-generated sources and trivial listings found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:53, 25 April 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 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. Star Mississippi 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Published Reporter

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Delaware. CNMall41 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion. Fishnagles (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 21 April 2024 (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, 28 April 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!} 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable magazine/website. Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Scotland. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cfls (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cfls why do you wish to have the article deleted? Voting without a rationale is unhelpful. Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have any reliable, secondary coverage or meet WP:NMAG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 20 April 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 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. ✗plicit 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollDating

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

Article created by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 evading a salting on Rocknrolldating. None of the sources I looked at discuss the subject in sufficient depth to qualify for WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sexuality and gender, Canada, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 22 April 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 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. ✗plicit 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Network (matchmaking)

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

At first glance this looks well-sourced, however on a closer look except for one source I couldn't access none of them are actually in-depth and independent. Nearly everything is reliant on information provided by the company's founders - the sole exception is the American Banker source which has one paragraph attributed to a third-party analyist

Both of those trends make Citizens' partnership with Opportunity Network stand out. In 2016, Patricia Hines, a senior analyst at Celent, researched the venture capital and private-equity money that was flowing to fintech startups. Only 5% of it, she found, was going to startups working on commercial applications.
"I have not seen anything even close to this," she said, referring to Opportunity Network.

But that by itself is nowhere near enough to support notability. Previously deleted and salted as Opportunity Network * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Websites, Spain, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references fail the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 22 April 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. Consensus is that the article fails to meet WP:NCORP or requires a complete rewrite. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [3] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [4] [5] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article 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. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 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 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthy Mummy

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

This is odd. It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school. It's also a complete advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history. Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article. Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive. Wozza369 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete. The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books. It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here. At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find. Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox. They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history. Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page and the history. Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article. I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly. I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error. Wozza369 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional. "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums". All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported. It reads like an advert. KJP1 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more. This [6] gives context on how the website is used, [7] and [8] seem to cover the website and the founder. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is going to have to be delete. I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And it’s an advert. KJP1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete !vote, so this is a duplicate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made. I’m just not very familiar with the process. I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chat websites

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

Unreferenced since 2013. Time to go for violating WP:V/WP:LISTN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid navigational list. Category:Chat websites exist. Lists are always more useful than categories as they allow more information to be listed. And WP:LISTN clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. For years now these sorts of list have always been kept when sent to AFD. Dream Focus 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a poorly updated and random list. Some sites closed years ago. Plenty of other sites are not listed. Some are miscategorised (eg. Omegle as "adult"). The categories are random and not necessarily helpful. Finally, it violates WP:NLIST.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At minimum, it's a fine navigational aid/index of articles on chat websites. The features in the tables need sources, yes, but that seems like a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, since at worst those can just be removed should someone wish to challenge them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: list needs to be updated not deleted as this is useful for readers as they might search of chat websites here n there, like chat websites in 2012 or 2023 anything this would be helpful. HarryD (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly different discussion, but I don't see a difference between Online chat and Instant messaging, and there is already a similar list at Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients. There was a failed merge proposal in 2006 that argued there were differences between online chat and IM, but I can't find evidence that these differences really exist (e.g. IRC is now described as "instant messaging"). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voice chat and video chat might be part of online chat but not instant messaging, but the articles are very vague about this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 19 April 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