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

CiberCuba

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

I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
[1]	NYT	NYT	brief mention about the site being made inaccessible in Cuba
[2]	based on outlet's reporting	BBC	crediting the outlet for reporting on the name of a person
[3]		deprecated; see WP:MARTI
[4]	USA Today	USA Today	does not mention the outlet
[5]	based on the outlet's reporting	NYT	crediting outlet with reporting on transport of dolphins
[6]	direct quotation of the outlet	BBC	brief mention in article about an ostrich meme
[7]	article subject's site
[8]	article subject's site
[9]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	Washington Post	brief quotations from the outlet
[10]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	France 24	brief quotations from the outlet
[11]	list of Marco Rubio's articles on outlet's website
[12]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Telemundo
[13]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Univision
[14]	article subject's site
[15]	English translation of SembraMedia article published by the Global Investigative Journalism Network	SembraMedia appears to be an advocacy organization and it's not clear how independent they are from funders.	borderline
[16]	Pulitzer Center		does not mention the outlet
[17]	News Whip	appears to be reliable	briefly mentions how many news interactions it has had
[18]	article subject's site
[19]	Cubadebate.cu	first image in the article looks like a conspiracy theory web	brief mention in a quote from another source
[20]	Fidel Castro fansite	Fidel Castro fansite

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Cuba. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's coverage here [21] and here [22], but it's mostly just briefly discussing the site. I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no sources. Article is in an enormous mess and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title. WP:TNT. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why this can't be covered under the main Ceop article. This is a former program, that's been renamed, with no sourcing other than primary items. We don't need an old article to talk about something else; this is either notable or it isn't. I don't see coverage for this defunct website program thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I concur there is no reason for this as a stand alone article due to previously mentioned arguements, but I think it should redirect to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. Demt1298 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because the campaign has been run and appears active in other countries, such as Australia AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of primary coverage exists about the Australian campaign so either DISAMBIGUATE or keep as a Wp:SETiNDEX? Or simply keep, indicate there are UK and AUS campaigns and cut/improve....https://inews.co.uk/news/national-crime-agency-animated-series-jessie-and-friends-young-children-online-grooming-268647 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sharenting-warning-online-predators-are-asking-parents-to-facilitate-child-sexual-abuse/fcs1m1rhc https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/thinkuknow-program-launched-to-battle-online-porn-risk/8863942 not opposed to Redirect but then the Australian campaign should be mentioned in the dedicated section of CEOP (by a hatnote or in prose; NB the section does not yet exist, so technically implies a merge). I know this should not be an argument at AfD but still, this time I will say it, this is useful. I won’t bold anything but feel free to, if you think it should be made clear I suggest 3 or 4 different outcomes but not deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please check sources identified during the first Keep AfD. Thanks,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is have you seen the state of the article? It's no longer about the ThinkUKnow campaign, it's entirely about something else which is not notable. This mess should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mess, sure, but not the page :D. I will start. Feel free to revert my edits. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no references or any sources that support its statements. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article deletion is not the solution for badly written content, although blanking and redirection could be. However, this article has been completely rewritten since nomination and now is a stub that has 8 sources from 2 different countries. It can be improved and expanded upon. Potentially there are two different article here, but simply documenting the name is a first step. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LawCareers.Net

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEBCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find a single reliable source online. The best ones are in the article already, but aren't really about the topic. win8x (talking | spying) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Half-Life

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

Not verifiable and doesn't appear notable. Unsure if it is different from Gamespy's other Planet Network websites, maybe merge to GameSpy. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources found here, here, here and here. Due to the age of the site, they all appear to be entirely WP:OFFLINE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good searching, although these look like web directory entries. IgelRM (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source [23]McYeee (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this is from Kyle Orland's blog. I don't think commenting on the skeptical article is significant coverage of the website. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional sources: Strana Igr: [24], PC PowerPlay: [25], PC Accelerator: [26]. I think there's enough of these write-ups now that the article passes GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoMowheelz

AfDs for this article:

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

Moved back to draftspace after previous discussion was closed as soft delete, hence why WP:CSD#G4 is not appropriate despite being moved back to articlespace by the article's creator with no substantive improvements. Zero coverage of this non-notable website; WP:GNG and/or WP:WEB not met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and Rajasthan. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero reliable independent coverage anywhere, fails WP:WEB. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for sources that might bring this article back and couldn't find anything in English. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find coverage that met WEB or NCORP. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayfree Press

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

While (some of) the webcomics that were part of Dayfree Press are notable, DP itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's this article in the The Comics Grid journal, which brings it up on p. 4 and 9 (and which could be considered sigcov, I guess). And there's also a Wired.com blog that says ~80 words about Dayfree Press. But I wasn't able to find more. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Webcomics, Organizations, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi toweli there are also mentions alongside other webcomic collectives in A History of Webcomics (2006) and Webcomics 2.0 (2008) also has a section on webcomics collectives. So combined with the Comics Grid Journal article you found...and possibly others (that don't mention Dayfree Press), my proposed solution as a WP:ATD (if you are interested) would be to create a new "List of webcomic collectives" article (if one doesn't already exist) and redirect Dayfree Press to that one. Happy editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Assuming there are enough sources, that sounds like a good idea and would allow Wikipedia to cover webcomic collectives which have received some coverage, but not enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. An ATD was mentioned but no target article identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear GNG fail, listcruft of something that isn't even a real organisation, it's just a collection of people who stuck weblink advertising on their page. It's been 15 years with zero sourcing. Enough is enough. Time to go. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This book comes up, but I can't open it from my location [27]. I don't see sigcov for this web item. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideal thing is to create the list article proposed above. For now very short selective merge to Webcomic#Webcomics collectives seems best. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbrella

AfDs for this article:

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

While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Webcomics, Organizations, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Webcomic#Webcomics collectives seems like the best bet? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides a listing in the colofon of Webcomics (2005), I got nothing. The sources in the article aren't particularly reliable either, so there's nothing for us to say on Dumbrella I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([28]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([29]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing in my literature either, and a google is giving me nothing reliable. There's not much for us to work with here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoora Platform

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

The topic in question lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It does not meet the necessary criteria for independently significant under Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Either the article should be deleted or merge with with the relevant parent article, Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete the Fatoora Platform page, as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under both WP:GNG and subject-specific notability.

1. Independent Sources: The platform has been covered by reliable, independent sources such as PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Saudi Gazette, which provide significant analysis on its implementation and role in tax compliance within Saudi Arabia. These sources establish the platform's notability as they are independent, non-promotional, and provide in-depth coverage.

2. Impact: Fatoora is integral to Saudi Vision 2030, a major national reform program, and plays a critical role in digital transformation and tax regulation in the country. It impacts millions of businesses and has been recognized as a significant development in Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization.

3. Notability Compliance: The article is well-supported by both primary and independent sources, fulfilling the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The platform's wide-reaching impact, both locally and internationally, demonstrates its significance.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be retained. Njoy deep (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak

AfDs for this article:

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
- Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
- Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
- Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
- Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
- Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
- Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
- Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
- Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.

Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with million subscribers and has Hindi coverage.122.172.87.137 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website Proposed deletions