Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shellwood (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 1 December 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Student_Room (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Websites

The Student Room

The Student Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. mikeblas (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are mutiples articles are about the student room website from sources that WP:RS such as bbc, the guardian, and the times.
1keyhole (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag

AfDs for this article:
NoFrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear sufficiently notable. FactorNews article alone seems below significant coverage and Sébastien Delahaye reflection mentions their FTP server. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem like reliable/significant coverage. Searched for sources in French & English and cannot find any (except blogs) either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG according to what I could find. Last AfD kept the article on the basis that the subject has lots of WP: GOOGLEHITS, which is an argument that is deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator addendum: Found a mention from Les Echos, which quotes it as having "35,000 visitors per day". IgelRM (talk) 20:19, 4 December 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 Mandatory (company). Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameRevolution

GameRevolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of this article is sourced from Game Revolution itself. Not seeing enough secondary sources on the site which makes this website appear to not be notable to get its own article. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the sources, none of them clearly give reliable/significant/independent/secondary coverage. The only possible ones are the two sources (DMW & Reuters) discussing the purchase, but the coverage is not very significant, and the Reuters one is explicitly a press release, while the DMW one is very likely one anyways. Google books/regular search reveal no sources and there is no obvious reason why any should exist, given it's a minor gaming news source that features in awards sometimes. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SIGCOV, and lack of notability. Encoded  Talk 💬 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IgelRM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 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.

Ground News


Ground News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, been in place since March 2024 UnikumMitsu-bishi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNG Urchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ground News is trying to fill an important function for us, there is always controversy about the news, bias in the media, pollution of the discussion. Let's not be excessively critical of this organization for their imperfections, we can all post comments throughout the unsociable media and call attention to places where we see room for improvement. If this article needs more sources, let's find some, not throw away what we have now. Bartimas2 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Bartimas2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Please write in your own words why you'd like the article kept; first edit ever is to an AfD so it's likely definite this is not your first rodeo here. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' According to zerogpt, Bartimas2's comment was almost definitely written by a human. It's not a good rationale, but that's another issue. -- Mike 🗩 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So basically, 2 people here who said keep (Sal2100, and Urchincrawler) made some good points over the fact that there's enough reliable sources (per WP:RS) and coverage to make it clear it was/is able to be to pass WP:GNG and therefore is able to be kept. Now is there stuff to improve in the article? Yes, there are stuff to improve on, but my opinion here still has some credibility. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NCORP applies to this page, so the bar is a little bit higher than just passing GNG (and even if it wasn't, I'm still not convinced that this page would pass GNG). This source [1] is reliable and covers the subject in some depth. This other one [2] discusses Ground News among multiple other products/companies, but it doesn't focus on it enough in order to indicate that it is notable (WP:ORGTRIV). This one [3] sounds exceedingly promotional, which is especially suspicious because this website has a big demographic of technology-interested potential customers for the product that Ground News is offering, it seems to fail WP:ORGIND. Badbluebus (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that I see WP:ORGIND as being a bit perplexing as there's no evidence I can find of a corporate relationship between these two companies. However DigitalTrend looks like churnalism to me so I'd rate its reliability low anyway. Especially for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like an interesting startup but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON unfortunately. (If the decision is delete, and if the original contributor doesn't speak up and/or claim it, can someone WP:USERFY it into my sandbox? I'll check on new refs periodically. It is a good starting point if more sourcing appears in future.) Talk to SageGreenRider 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline here, and is considerably stricter than GNG. C F A 03:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Ping @DV79, do you want to move it to your sandbox?
Draftify Delete and salt. Until more reliable sources are found, the notability is not enough for now. Better just wait for half a decade. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt? Why not just delete? C F A 03:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a wikipedia page that lists (and briefly describes) news aggregation sites, because I can't find one:
    • The page "List of news aggregators" does not exist.

If articles like this are deleted, there should be (at the very least) a list of such sites. 2A00:23C6:ED81:2601:B91E:1FB0:DD7B:6F6A (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once reliable sources cover about the subject, then a deletion review might happen. For now, it doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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! 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemxpert Database

Chemxpert Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent WP:PROMO violation. Article contains no third-party sourcing at all; external links provide some third-party interviews but nothing independent of the subject. On running the usual searches, I have not been able to locate anything that is even minimally suggestive of independent coverage in reliable sources, on which an encyclopedic article could be based. So I'm not sure this even meets WP:V, let alone WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. (NB: there is also a "ChemXpert" software product that does not appear to be related to this company, which comes up in some Google Scholar searches.) Visviva (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All extrenal links are removed from article. Pharmadatabase (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am rather against the deletion of articles on Wikipedia but this is clearly a page used to promote this service, no reliable source found after some research and almost all the sources of the article are primary, I think that the article was even eligible for speedy deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:09, 3 December 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× ☎ 20:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites with country access restrictions

List of websites with country access restrictions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list has never been properly maintained, is unclear in scope, and contains an entry that does not exist anymore. Independent sourcing may not really exist for specific websites. To the extent that specific countries have known internet restrictions, these topics are better covered in country-specific articles. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shankargb's comment. Encoded  Talk 💬 14:55, 1 December 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 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manc

The Manc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on website that is mostly self sourced. Pretty much entirely promotional. No serious improvements since creation in 2020. I can't find many reliable sources covering the news site. William Graham talk 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:03, 3 December 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! 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit

AfDs for this article:
Bybit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated after deletion less than a year ago and no closer to meeting WP:NCORP. Sources are primarily composed of recycled press releases ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), but also include non-qualifying WP:PRODUCTREVs ([14], [15]); WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs like ([16]; explicitly sponsored content ([17], [18], [19]); WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([20], [21]); pure spam ([22]); and a dead/unarchived link left over from the last creation ([23]). Nothing to meet the test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing else qualifying. (Note: all participants in previous AfD have been notified of this discussion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk

Earmilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For music magazines, especially online ones, I look to see how often it has been cited in other periodicals and books. In this case, the website has been cited only twice in its fifteen year history. It fails WP:NPERIODICAL #1 and #4 for sure. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:06, 6 December 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article given the changes made and sources found. It sounds like additional work is called for so I hope those editors arguing to Keep can make some time to improve thi one. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

AfDs for this article:
Free Internet Chess Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([24], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([25], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([26]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([27]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though not easily searchable, Chess Life is available on line. I haven't found a better way to search it than googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + search term. Googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com FICS" yields a few hits but also a lot of false positives. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Just a note that it is important to search in chess source by the acronym FICS as well as by the complete name to see all text referring to the Free Internet Chess Server. There is coverage in the following books (some are in snippet view but the "FOUND INSIDE" view on the search page was promising) and journals: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 19 and the Sage journal are inaccessible in their entirety. Could you give an overview of what their contents are? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4meter4's slapdash citing of trivial coverage is precisely not how AfDs are supposed to operate. Rather than saying there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we should confirm which ones, if any, are significant. From that list it is not confirmable whether SIGCOV exists, and the fact that most are clearly trivial makes me lose faith in whether 4meter4 has actually checked before making that claim. People are free to recreate the page afterwards as a redirect if they add some info from a reliable source to Internet chess server, but there does not seem to be anything to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Rhodo's sources? Plus, I sampled 4 sources, and all of them had a few paragraphs of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Being used for studies" does not constitute significant coverage. Whatever the study is researching is what is being covered there, rather than the tools used to accomplish the research. As for the SIGCOV it would help if you said which specific sources, since almost everything I noted was trivial or I could not access enough to determine whether there was sufficient content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I misread Rhodo's sources, sorry about that.
    [8], for example. 3 paragraphs describing what it is (and in a major instructional book). It addresses the subject directly and in detail enough to extract the information without OriginalResearch, thus it is SigCov. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I want to provoke you into a delete !vote, all I have to do is cite a bunch of random trivial mentions? I'm sure that's not really the case, but it sounds like you're objecting to what you consider to be an undisciplined source search rather than the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cite 20 trivial mentions, then I'm probably not going to read through all of them and pick out what few, if any, are significant. People are not required to check every single source carefully before !voting. The admin can determine whether someone is being negligent with their vote and discount it, but frankly they're not likely to bother either because the burden is on the article creator, not them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I made several edits to the page, adding some citations, reorganizing, and removing a lot of the poorly sourced how-to material. Some of the sources aren't going to help notability, but a few are, so I'll draw your attention to (a) a recent book, The Chess Revolution, where it looks like FICS comes up on several pages. My Google Books preview is limited, but it's clear it's more than brief mentions. (b) an article in The Chicago Chess Player is exactly the sort of thing we'd see more of if this weren't in the early/pre-web era. Most chess publications at the time would've had articles on FICS, either on its own or as part of the ICS/ICC saga or in the context of internet chess more broadly. If folks have archives of Chess Life or the various regional publications, it would be worth a scan of issues from the latter half of the 90s. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicago Article appears to start on page 9 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments:
  • Chess Life is indeed available online, at [46]. It can be painfully slow to load, for example, the issues for one year (such as 1996), but once loaded, they are easily searched. I am a subscriber, and I don't remember reading anything about FICS in it from back then, but that was a long time ago. I heard about FICS on the forums, where the drama of the split between ICC and FICS played out. I do not play online chess, but you couldn't miss that if you were on chess forums.
  • This AfD looks like a follow-up to, or precursor of, the recent AfD of Free Internet Backgammon Server (FIBS), which ended in deletion. If we end up keeping this one, perhaps we should apply the same search techniques to find more substantial sources for the other one. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of what could be called "internetism", a strain of deletionism that asserts that if something cannot be easily found on the internet then it isn't notable. FIBS was indeed a significant early backgammon site and still functioning today. Afd's such as this one only add to Wikipedia's inherent WP:RECENTISM bias, in which for example recent sports events are given significantly more detailed coverage than earlier ones. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in The Chicago Chess Player includes an interview with Daniel Sleator by "Tim Krabb" [sic], "for an article in New In Chess magazine about Internet chess (which will appear mid-May". So if anyone has access to 1996 issues of NIC, that looks like an excellent place to look Bruce leverett (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree there seems to be some concerns over the depth of coverage, I do have to concur with Zx that 4meter4's sources are a bit hit or miss. A large chunk just briefly mention the server as a host for something, or the fact it exists. A few sources seem promising (Such as a few of the book sources) but those I'm unable to access in their entirety, so I can't gauge their depth of coverage properly. I won't vote one way or the other just yet since I'd like to see some more research be done into some of these sources, but I do feel this discussion would benefit from a more thorough BEFORE. If nothing else springs up in the next few days, I'll take a look myself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Rhododendrites. To be sure, this kind of early-web topic is tricky to source with sources Wikipedia considers reliable, but while borderline, it does appear that this is on the keepable side of the line to me. I wouldn't exactly use this AFD as precedent elsewhere but it seems like there is sufficient coverage, even if I wouldn't hold my breath for this becoming a FA. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources, exactly, compelled you to !vote Keep? Given the lack of explanation from others with the same opinion, apparently taking the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES standpoint, it would be useful to know, as I might even do the same if I saw some excellent sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I agree with you that we lack excellent sources. Just that sometimes 20 weak sources or passing references can be enough. It's not optimal, but it's workable. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned previously that Internet chess server does exist, and information about it can easily be expanded there unless better sources are found. Given that the exact same info would likely be in both places, do you believe this to also be inadequate? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a tough case but the book sources from 4meter4 and Rhododendrites appear to have enough about this subject to meet the WP:NBASIC as the coverage is just beyond trivial. At the very least some of this info should be included in Internet chess server but I think this ought to be kept as its own article. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 7 December 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! 07:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of online language tutoring platforms

List of online language tutoring platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST. The one cited source discussing a group is about language learning apps in general, not "language tutoring platforms" specifically. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 6 December 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Websites&oldid=1260605921"