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

Whoppah

AfDs for this article:

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

This article popped up again, after being speedied this past October. Sources still don't seem to show notability; press releases, marginal news sources. Likely PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for the review. I’d like to clarify the sourcing, as the article relies primarily on independent, secondary coverage rather than press releases or self-published material.

Whoppah meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through multiple instances of significant coverage in established, independent publications, including:

Het Financieele Dagblad (FD) - multiple in-depth articles over several years covering Whoppah’s funding rounds, competitive position in the vintage furniture market, European expansion, acquisitions (Design Market, Showroommodellen.nl), and profitability. FD is a national financial newspaper with editorial oversight.
De Telegraaf - early independent profile at launch (2019).
Quote - detailed reporting on funding, investors, and growth strategy.
Emerce and Twinkle - coverage of acquisitions, profitability, and international expansion within the e-commerce sector.

These sources are independent of the company, non-promotional, and provide sustained coverage across multiple years, rather than routine announcements.

Based on this breadth and depth of coverage, the subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Uaman123Uaman (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerlMonks

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

This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. From a Google search, I wasn't able to find a single usable secondary source about the subject, so it seems clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:NORG. (Note: I realized there are a number of related articles with these same notability issues. Because their subjects are still distinct, I chose not to WP:BUNDLE.) WikiFouf (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV found to prove notability. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid.com

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:RS or WP:LASTING, fails WP:GNG SpragueThomson^talk 22:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. SpragueThomson^talk 22:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no SIGCOV for current site and extremely minimal coverage for the dead site. I can't see notability. Lijil (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In a sense, this is not entirely the same topic as the previous nominations despite this technically being the same article, owing to the original website shutting down and the domain name being taken over by cryptocurrency interests. Any notability here would be for the "old" Stupid.com, I suspect… but the earlier nominations were all in 2006 and 2007, when at least some notability standards were a bit looser, so that might not count for much in 2025. (I have no direct opinion in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whychristmas.com

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

There are three sources cited on this article about a Christmas website, all of which are primary. The claim to notability is that it "is the biggest Christmas information website on the web", but I doubt this is a large category, and the source is a blog by the developer himself.

A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any in-depth coverage by secondary sources. I believe the article fails WP:NWEBSITE. Iiii I I I (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Websites. Iiii I I I (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no indication of notability ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability per GNG. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Nintendo Magazine

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NWEB. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. GamesIndustry.biz has some articles: [1], [2] but they are press releases, i.e. primary sources. Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and United States of America. Mika1h (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't understand how an article without a single significant source has passed WP:AFC. IgelRM (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems very promotional, and I found no significant coverage to justify keeping this magazine. Sorry, but it should be deleted. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abysmally low quality article with little sigcov. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetech

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

Completely non-notable subject. None of the articles cited are about Cemetech and mention it either in passing or not at all. OmegaAOL talk? 15:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Software, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, and fairly blatant AI-generated text. Bearian (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Comparing edits since 2019 show no significant changes have been kept since A.I.-generated content was mainstreamed. While I don't see any issues with the current article or its sources, most of the sources (approximately 22 of 32?) are related to projects pioneered by the founder of Cemetech on the site. The article could benefit from more sources that directly reference the site itself, but this does not itself warrant deletion. LogicalJoe3.14 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Running the introduction section through zerogpt.plus shows 'Mostly Human'. PokémonPerson 16:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery.com

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

Promotional only with not independent reliable routine media mentions Never-ending string (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Websites, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a link base, no matter how worthy the service you provide. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The_Thaiger

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Thaiger

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

Looks to violate both WP:V and WP:NEXIST and WP:NOR just like the prior article that this article duplicated... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phuket_Gazette. Plmoin2514 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Thailand. jolielover♥talk 14:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AfD seems to have ended with minimal participation and did not make a strong decision. I also see that Thai editors did not appear interested in voting in the previous AfD, and there was no proper research in Thai language done on the topic.

As of now, after doing my own research about the Phuket Gazette (the former one), I would point out that it is clearly notable. Btw I'm not Thai but Burmese, so I cannot search deeply in Thai-language sources, but I still found significant sources for this media outlet in English. I am not sure whether the current rebrand Thaiger is notable (no cmt on this), but the predecessor PG is not the same, and the newspaper was once the largest English-language newspaper in Thailand’s major tourist city.

Here is an example: [3] ... Phuket Gazette, also a weekly, is the island of Phuket's largest English-language newspaper with a circulation of 25,000–35,000 depending on the season, and more than 80% of the local newspaper readership market.

So there is no notability problem for the predecessor, and I would even suggest changing the current article name from Thaiger to Phuket Gazette if needed, with The Thaiger mentioned only as the rebrand.

I also sense that the nominator may hold a WP:IDONTLIKE. According to The Thaiger’s talk page, they seem overly sensitive about allowing this media outlet to have a Wikipedia page and even accused the media of operating a visa scam. If you have a source showing that this media outlet is running a visa scam, please provide the link to support this claim...& I will add the scam information to the article. However, I do agree that The Thaiger appears to have past lawsuits for content stealing, and this seems to have already been added to the article, which is appropriate.

Editing on Wikipedia should not be based on personal dislike, and please keep in mind WP:NPOV.

I hope the article creator adds some points to this AfD by researching more in Thai-language sources. Thanks. KhantWiki (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KhantWiki Thanks for finding the source and for your comment. Sorry, I’m not interested in voting on this now. The nominator accused me of COI on this and PA on the talk page, so I will let other editors decide and remain silent. If needed, I will give my vote later. ManoiCMU (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Thai Ministry of Tourism calling the Thaiger's TDAC website tdac.agents.co.th (along with any other fake sites) a scam a few weeks ago. Their business partners, Thai Visa Centre, have been attempting to vandalize the TDAC article for months, trying to get backlinks. Their new strategy appears to be putting indirect backlinks on the The Thaiger's website, which they link to various Wikipedia articles for SEO, so they can ultimately dupe tourists into paying them for the airport arrival card that is free on the Thai government website. The author ManoiCMU already admits he links to The Thaiger on as many Wikipedia articles as possible. As The Thaiger is an English-language blog that plagiarizes other Thai newspapers, there are few Thai-language sources that mention them. Plmoin2514 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plmoin2514 After checking the article you mentioned above, I found no statement saying that the government has called tdac.agents.co.th (Thaiger) a scam. I checked this carefully because, if such a claim were actually mentioned, I would be willing to add that scam information to the article. What's strange is this: The Thaiger is a legally registered media company in Thailand. If it were operating a visa scam, why hasn’t the police arrested anyone or at least issued an official statement? Thailand is very sensitive about visa-related scams, so why would the authorities not warn the public or take action against The Thaiger if it were running a fake TDAC site?

By the way, I am not Thai but I am Burmese, from a country bordering Thailand. I am very happy to visit Bangkok many times, and I am aware that there are many TDAC scam sites circulating. However, Wikipedia is a reliable, media coverage based platform. If you want to add this kind of information, it must be supported by reliable media sources. Without that, we cannot add or accept it. It also seems that you are very sensitive about this visa-related topic, which you are currently interested in and editing on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, without reliable source coverage supporting your claim, I cannot buy it here. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pretend like you don't understand the Khaosod article in which the Thai Ministry of Tourism and Prime Minister's office called out TDAC scam websites, that's your choice, but it casts suspicion on your opinions here. You wrote "If it were operating a visa scam, why hasn’t the police arrested anyone"... are you sure you understand how Thailand works? Btw, they were arrested previously for scamming people, and 5 years later they are still not in prison. Getting a bit off topic here, but I find it interesting that a few Thai and "Burmese" editors showed up immediately to defend this article just 2 weeks after the previous article was removed from Wikipedia for being spammy and lacking sufficient references. And that's after several years of editors voting not to allow Phuket_Gazette to be moved to The_Thaiger for the same reasons mentioned... Plmoin2514 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t cry. I have many active argument discussions like this right now. Of course, I have been active in countless AfDs and have saved and deleted countless articles. I am an AfD fighter and happy to make problem and question....see my AfD work in my recent contributions. You messed with the wrong guy. You are clearly WP:IDONTLIKE and are attacking others without evidence. I am not like the other editors you can bite, as you did above. Your edit count is very low...only around 100 and you became active again only after a recent incident...it very interesting. No matter what, this topic is notable according to my analysis. I have no time for this now. If you want to add a visa scam case, please find reliable sources for it. If not, I can’t help you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... No matter whether The Thaiger (the new name of the Phuket Gazette) is notable or not, the Phuket Gazette is clearly notable. See the sources and analysis below.

The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (a major German think tank) analyzed the Phuket media landscape and explicitly named the Phuket Gazette as the “main weekly newspaper”, describing it as the dominant media market leader. This academic source discusses the newspaper at length.

This article from The Phuket News significantly covered the history and profile of the paper.

This primary source report states that their Phuket Gazette won the "Best Newspaper in South Thailand Award" see.

Researchers have cited Phuket Gazette reports to model economic collapse, such as in Cowan, H., et al. (2005). Survey of impacts on the Andaman coast, southern Thailand following the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 38(3).

The newspaper also has an entry in the Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media.

The Nation wrote "Marketers gone digital already know the power of the Gazette Online, the island’s top-rated English-language web and mobi platforms for both traffic and page views. They also know that our stories aboard these platforms appear in our Facebook, the island’s largest by far for English language, with 168,000 followers."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify this page existing on Wikipedia, even if someone opposes it simply due to WP:IDONTLIKE. If the article is kept, I will restore content about the media’s former name Phuket Gazette, since the current version is not enough to represent their earlier identity. Notability is not temporary, even if the organization rebrands. That’s all. Hteiktinhein (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as per the source analyses and supporting citations suggested above. I am reconsidering my vote to keep.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument belongs over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phuket_Gazette and not here, imo. Plmoin2514 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the WP:SIGCOV coverage in multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated above, appears sufficient to establish notability. Therefore, there is enough, and I don’t need to find additional sources to prove it. The notability of a media/organization is determined by being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and by what it has achieved over time. This media is one of the largest and most widely viewed newspapers in Southern Thailand, and it has also received awards. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Better India

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources verify its existence but nothing I find meets WP:CORPDEPTH that doesn't fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the nomination misses the mark regarding WP:CORPDEPTH. If you do a quick search, you’ll find plenty of coverage that goes way deeper than just standard press releases or passing mentions. Take the 2018 Nieman Lab feature, for example—it gives a thorough breakdown of their journalism style and business model, which is usually the gold standard for notability. On top of that, you have the BBC controversy and their apology, which was picked up by independent outlets like Newslaundry and Swarajya. The material is definitely out there; the article just needs the legwork to incorporate it. Jībanmṛta^message 18:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of an exhaustive list in a BBC report is not it. It was included in a list one time in the report as an organization with a Twitter handle that is known to publish fake news. Nothing in-depth in that report about the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SaTnamZIN (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of it in a book by Oxford University Press that has a chapter titled The Better India: Solution-Based Impact Entrepreneurship. It was also covered by Nieman Lab at Harvard University. The incident with the BBC was covered by Newslaundry (reliable per this RfC), which published an article titled Why the BBC owes a real apology to The Better India. It was also covered by The Deccan Herald. There was no centralized discussion of the reliability of the latter, but various editors commented, the Deccan Herald and by other RS internationally[4] and This article in the Deccan Herald, a reliable Indian newspaper.[5] Kelob2678 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be centralized discussion of reliability. Just because a publication is reliable doesn't mean that an individual article within isn't reliable. That is the purpose of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Strange how an incident with the BBC that is the claim of notability here isn't covered by more mainstream media. The other sources were already covered above if you want to read the reply to the other Keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources were properly addressed above. If a media outlet is reliable, it means that articles published in it are presumed reliable. Newslaundry is an RS, it is irrelevant whether it is considered "mainstream" or not. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis. You are right, it was not properly addressed. Here it is:--CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
(1) https://www.bloomberg.com/resear...	~	WP:CORPTRV	✘ No
(2) http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/03...		The only soruce that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion.	✔ Yes
(3) https://www.deccanherald.com/con...	Reliable source, but majority of content is provided by the publication	Again, information provided by founder and all quotes. Fails CORPDEPTH.	✘ No
(4) https://www.livemint.com/Compani...	Churnalized announcement from the company.	Routine coverage of founding. Searching the headline in Google finds a dozen or so more of this chrunalised press from the company.	✘ No
(5) https://zeenews.india.com/busine...		Same as above. Coincidentally, the headline is in the URL but leads to a different article about Lindsy Lohan. Regardless, it is all part of the churnalised routine funding announcemnt.	✘ No
(6) https://www.financialexpress.com...		SAA	✘ No
(7) https://tech.economictimes.india...		SAA	✘ No
(8) https://ipsmf.org/		Homepage link of an organization. Doesn't even mention The Better India.	✘ No
(9) https://www.thebetterindia.com/s...		Company website. Not reliable for showing notability.	✘ No
(10) https://economictimes.indiatimes...		More churnalized funding announcment.	✘ No
(11) https://www.huffingtonpost.in/au...	Author profile of The Better India (which is now removed). So, anythign written would not be indpendent.		✘ No
(12) https://www.newslaundry.com/2018...		Again, this talks about how there needs to be a retraction by the BBC but this does not satisfy CORPDEPTH. It is not in-depth about the publication (it only addresses an article where The Better India was mentioned one time). Again, nothign in-depth about the company which is required by CORPDEPTH.	✘ No
(13) https://twitter.com/thebetterind...		Twitter is never reliable for purposes of establishing notability.	✘ No
(14) https://www.newslaundry.com/shor...		One paragraph which again is addressing a report in the BBC, nothign in-depth about the company.	✘ No
(15) https://www.freepressjournal.in/...		Mention. Routine coverage of an award. Not in-depth.	✘ No
(16) https://www.maricoinnovationfoun...		Dead link but I am goign to assume it is the same as above as it is an award of some kind.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If an organization is involved in a controversy and it is being covered by reliable sources, this counts towards establishing notability. This is the case with the BBC and The Better India here. While The Deccan Herald is indeed heavily reliant on quotes and serves as a relatively weak source, I still believe the non-quoted sections contribute to notability.

Extended content

TheBetterIndia.com (TBI) is a news portal that reports only positive news from across the country, 365 days a year. The venture was launched seven years ago by this husband-and-wife duo and since then TBI has been sharing the inspiring stories of unsung heroes, change-makers, innovations, health, sanitation and other ... TBI had featured many inspiring stories ranging from report about a group of visually impaired people running a photography club, jobs for the specially abled, conservation efforts in a hill station and more, that won it many awards like the Manthan Award for Best Alternative News Site across South Asia in 2009, The Social Media for Empowerment Award, 2014 and the Grand Prize winner at the Sankalp Forum, 2015. Recently, TBI also got an investment of Rs one crore from former Infosys CFO and chairman of Manipal Global Education, Mohandas Pai.

You also ignored the source from the OUP, but included 13 sources that no one advocated using to establish notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If an organization is involved in a controversy and it is being covered by reliable sources." Of course, if the controversy is about the company and covers it in-depth. This is the website complaining it was mentioned (one time by the way) in a lengthy article.

"included 13 sources that no one advocated using to establish notability." Wrong. The OP advocated for them..by using them...on the article they created.. The assessment shown is what they included on the page and I have seen nothing else presented that shows this meeting NCORP. We will need to agree to disagree at this point about how WP:ORGCRIT applies, but I have not seen a major change to it in the last decade so not sure how it would be different for this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forsalebyowner.com

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

Seems like another non-WP:NCORP, WP:CORPTRIV-sourced company article; on top of that it's written like a product summary/advertisement. The only thing I could see that possibly evidences notability here is the lawsuit, but there doesn't seem to be enough SIGCOV to create an article. A GNews search turns up a lot of predictable passing/CORPTRIV stuff, and a GScholar search turns up some passing mentions in papers about FSBO sales in general, but not any sigcov about this site itself. Maybe its content could be included into For sale by owner as an ATD if deletion isn't preferred? Athanelar (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Athanelar (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 03:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted garbage page no gng meeting criteria, just deletion is okay. 15:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Maazoz (talk)
Delete - The article doesn’t have enough independent, reliable coverage to show lasting notability. The 2003 lawsuit is the only potentially notable part, but unless there are strong sources highlighting its impact, the content (including company history) would be better merged into For sale by owner or a general FSBO websites article. If anyone can provide solid, independent coverage, the notability case could be revisited; until then, deletion with merge seems appropriate. SanneMonte (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket Companies#Subsidiaries, where appropriate short mention of it within its current company is already blended into that section; this article looks as if it hasn't really been touched in years outside the mention of said acquisition by Rocket outside of maintenance, general 'spam everything' real estate SPAs, and reverted COI edits. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally It's a brand name for a company by the way, so if anything should be included on for sale by owner it should be only a 'not to be confused' template to make it clear at the top of the page. Nathannah • 📮 22:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I did some digging (Google Books & Newspapers.com) and the company is likely notable but I don't plan on doing the WP:HEY and the information can be covered in Rocket Companies as already accomplished by Nathannah. As such, just need to create the redirect as an WP:ATD. For the hatnote, "for sale by owner" could have a disambiguation page since there are now five topics covered by that name. May be easier than a distinguish note. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that if we decide on redirect, changing that hatnote would be much more proper. Nathannah • 📮 19:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions