Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Websites. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Websites|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Websites. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:WEB.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Websites

Free Internet Chess Server

AfDs for this article:

(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 ([1], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([2], "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 ([3]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([4]) 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]
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: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 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]
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]

List of online language tutoring platforms

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Products, and Lists. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a non-trivial difference between "language tutoring platforms" and "language learning apps" like Duolingo or Babbel, which are listed at List of language self-study programs. But there isn't sourcing to suggest that Wikipedia needs a separate lists. I'm not sure if I prefer some form of merge (or a redirect to a category), but it should not be kept as-is. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Internet Backgammon Server

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The linked book does not contain significant coverage of FIBS. The article was kept in a 2008 discussion, but the arguments presented there wouldn't hold up today. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of trivial mentions in books etc. but nothing substantial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Trivial mentions on Newspapers.com as well. Timur9008 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wagerweb

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

Poorly sourced, and a search for sources sufficient to save this article was not successful. Just the occasional sports betting churnalism/SEO, and a few passing mentions nearly 20 years ago about hurricane betting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Oxford Handbook of Sports Economics Volume 2 list it as one of only eight active Sportsbooks in the world. At a bare minimum, we should at least selective merge this to Sportsbook.4meter4 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked sources says that it's one of the eight sources that make up the data that Sports Insights presents to their subscribers. There are far more than eight active sportsbooks in the world, and there certainly were back then as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing mention in a 12 year old reliable source is insufficient to establish notabilty in 2024. Wikipedia should not be a guidebook to non-notable gambling websites that lack significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Only notable entities should be mentioned in an article like Sportsbook, which is highly susceptible to spam and promotional editing. Cullen328 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Sports, Websites, and Costa Rica. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to nominate this myself once the article was stable, but then I got busy with other things. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MotaWord

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

No indication of notability per WP:NCORP. All sources found are press releases or clearly unreliable, and additional searching on the topic found nothing that shows clear notability. Cutlass ^Ciera 00:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Not finding any significant independent coverage on this company. If anyone can, ping me.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Companies, Websites, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no reliable independent sources to prove company's notability. James Tensky (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG guidelines. Some of the sources are primary and the two that are academic work are not enough to pass notability. Mekomo (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IForIndia

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:10YT and WP:NORG. Didn't get off the ground insofar as the website is dead and the Facebook page was last updated in 2019. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG. --Tupungato (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. They might do great work, but they don’t pass our standards for notability. This should’ve been deleted years ago. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and page is clearly WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reviewed all the references thoroughly, but none provide detailed information about the subject. As a result, it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Sources on article appear to be all promo reviews, primary sources, or an interview. No significant coverage found in searches. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found this source but couldn't find anything else to establish notability. I could be convinced to vote the other way if more people come forward with better sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is fairly notable. The article just needs more sources. —theMainLogan (t•c) 06:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan Just needs more sources? Sources I wasn’t able to find. Did you find more sources? --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article "just needs more sources" is not a reason to keep the article; it is unhelpful commentary that points out the obvious. Please show us actual sources that establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions