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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FundTool

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Repeatedly deleted under G11. Creator has COI. Exclusively sourced to press releases and the company's own website. – Teratix ₵ 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable spam. Previous attempts have been CSD'd. This is no better. Cited articles aren't even about the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with speedy deletion. – Teratix ₵ 16:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could potentially speedy even yeah. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References don't appear relevant, deletion might be the best course of action. Waqar💬 18:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per DarkAudit. Looks like G11 and possibly G4 as well. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 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 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!} 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skies & Scopes

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

Fails WP:WEBSITE; doesn't detail the site's "impact or historical significance", just the fact that it exists. Sources seem like churnalism based on pieces of the site's content, rather than being about the site itself. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Internet, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to have a significant coverage and it lacks reliable sources. You would hardly find a reliable secondary source on the subject, to even try to expand on it. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:01, 30 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarilynManson.com

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

Largely unsourced collection of original research/commentary about what happens to have been on Marilyn Manson's website. Not inherently notable; no evidence that the use of the website is unique or notable in-and-of-itself. Includes numerous unnecessary external links. Fails WP:WEBSITE. Any minor content worth noting about the website can simply be part of Marilyn Manson. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got an edit conflict trying to nominate this; you've said exactly what I was about to :) Notability is not inherited, and the OR/fancruft factor means there's little left that can't be merged into the main articles on MM the band / MM the person if needed. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all reasons highlighted by nominator and first commenter. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy the requirements at WP:WEBSITE, and is full of non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination InDimensional (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Waqar💬 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This page's material would better fit a Marilyn Manson Wiki too.TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 5 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 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 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag Pop

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Has had a {{notability}} tag for eight months with no improvements. References are either company listings, articles hosted by Hashtag Pop itself, or other news sources re-reporting their stories. A WP:BEFORE search in Portuguese doesn't yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Entertainment, Websites, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 29 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) 17:38, 6 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 11:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITYpeek

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Passing mentions in local sources only. – Teratix ₵ 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither in the cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any substantial coverage in independent sources. JBW (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For an article to meet WP:BASICS, it needs to have a strong context supported with reliable sources per WP:RS or then, we aren't arguing. GNG must be met before looking at WP:NCORP, an adittional criteria for various SNGs. The product isn't notable. Pls delete! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:57, 18 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 Userify‎. There was agreement that the article should be removed from mainspace, but consensus formed around making selections from the article available to Teratix (talk · contribs) for incorporation into his analytics article. I have moved the article to User:Teratix/AFL_Tables, please drop a line on my talk page when you wish it to be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!

Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 29 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!} 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that Teratix is able to access the material and merge it into his draft. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per TarnishedPath. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instablog9ja.com

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

I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Websites, and Nigeria. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references I made Realcontribution (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see where you're heading to how about if you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Take_Out

You will notice that they didn't add much references still it wasn't nominated for speedy deletion Realcontribution (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I ran a Google search and wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss the blog. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks in depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 2 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. Star Mississippi 01:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhivehi Wikipedia

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

No non-primary sourcing. Sohom (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a subject that has been covered in-depth in reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Sohom Datta and @Geschichte.

48JCL talk 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Interesting, we get to vote to delete one of the very sites we're editing on. But rules are rules. X (talk) 22:52, 6 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. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Maps

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

no RS outside of IndGoV sources Sohom (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Websites, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, No sources or coverage found of the subject. Only primary sources have been located, which fail to establish the notability required for a standalone article. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary or independent sources. Fails notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:43, 2 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. Deletion on the basis of consensus in so small a field might be doubtful, but the fact that the article also qualifies for speedy deletion as created by a block-evading editor (using both an account & IP editing), and arguably also as promotional removes any doubt. JBW (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Inside News

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

No notability upon WP:BEFORE. Doesn't meet GNG or NME 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since WP: NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on Somali Inside News that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case, this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned Mass media in Somalia. if anyone can tell us why it should be deleted. @Rydex64 HelperWik25 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need a lot more editors participating in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, this fails WP:NME and WP:GNG as there are no secondary, reliables sources available. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 11 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 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. 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 [1] 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 [2] [3] 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.

Website Proposed deletions