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 Reputation management. Since there is currently no target for the consensus redirect, I have redirected it to the closest I can find. This can of course be tweaked when/if the suggested list is created. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website reputation ratings[edit]

Website reputation ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it is not my area of expertise. Prod removed by Mr. Guye. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now find some resolution. Tagged by Bfigura. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I looked at GBooks and GScholar, but the few hits seem generic, and not sufficient to establish notability as a widespread technical or academic term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The term as such may be a bit of a neologism, but this article could be moved to List of website reputation websites or something. Or made into a category. —Ruud 11:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. The article doesn't have enough verifiable references, which makes it seem non-notable. This is largely because it is currently acting as a category/list while summing up the function of this type software in the lead section. However, one can find sources to use in this article but it seems like a better idea to convert it into a category or a list. — Jordan Mussi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted until there have been a reasonable number of responses? Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added the article to WP:WikiProject Business...it's arguable, all entries in the list will be businesses of some kind, so I suppose it's a list of businesses and therefore w/in scope. I also added WikiProject Software and Computer Security, all of which are within scope. Software might be a stretch. I won't be hurt if software's removed. I also posted on WP:WikiProject Internet's talk page, wasn't sure whether or not it was in their scope as well. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 1) None of the entries are businesses—they're software services. 2) If they were businesses, the appropriate WikiProject would be ((WikiProject Companies)). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list proposed by Ruud. Topic meets WP:LISTN. There's a clear inclusion criteria, and there's already written prose for the list's overview. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after collecting the listed sites in a category as suggested by Ruud. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ruud's proposed list, per Padenton's reasoning. APerson (talk!) 01:02, 4 May 2015 (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.