Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site (2nd nomination)

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 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Open Site

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Open Site
• Articles for deletion/Open Site (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Open Site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any WP:RSs that talk about this defunct sites. The mentions I can find are citations to the infomation from the website (e.g: [1] [2]) or as an entry in lists of online encyclopaedias (e.g:[3]) neither of which are WP:SIGCOV. I don't see anyway this could ever meet WP:NWEB

At the previous afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site) in 2007, the article was kept on the grounds that seem to me mostly WP:ATA type arguments (e.g: It is important, That it will be notable in the future, we have articles on less notable things, etc). Cakelot1 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Although this website is probably not notable now, at its original time before Wikipedia, it was probably notable. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  But notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has never had any sources, and there weren't enough found in the 2007 afd. On what are you basing you opinion that it was once notable, because I can't see how that can be based on any Wikipedia policy like WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Cakelot1 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see keeping this because it was short-lived and didn't really go anywhere. We do, however, need to find where all it is mentioned on WP and change the wikilink to, perhaps, a link to their archived web page. It would ideal to get a sentence or two into the DMOZ page saying that it was by "x" and ran from yyyy to yyyy. Otherwise, there's no history as context in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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.