Regulations.gov: Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't have a lot of experience with AFDs of official government websites articles.  So I looked for places it was talked about in generally reliable sources that aren't just linking to a regulation on it.  There are, of course, many links from government websites and newspapers about announcing new regulations to review.  There has been some coverage of the site as a site, however: EPA adds Web 2.0 to Regulations.gov (a good source), Robotic rulemaking (a good source), Improving Regulations.gov (a good source), Aligning Public Feedback to Requests for Comments on Regulations.gov (seemingly a good source), and an example of using it for research Legal Research for UNT Students .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Although not all sites with a . gov domain extension should receive their own article, the two credible sources you linked emphasize why it is useful to include this subject in the encyclopedia, Aligning Public Feedback to Requests for Comments on Regulations.gov Improving Regulations.gov .  Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article is a stub and there is minimal coverage of the topic - apart from the theregreview.org source I don't think any of the link above are useful.   Converting this to a redirect to the government agency that runs the website would be my preference, but it is unclear what the subject of the eRulemaking article is, and General Services Administration is too high-level a topic to redirect.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the article is just a stub does not mean it should be deleted; as per WP:N “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article” and “Article content does not determine notability.”  Google Scholar has 16,700 hits for “regulations.gov” in quotation marks; however, many (or most) of these “hits” are actually regulations.gov comments rather than scholartly articles about the regulations.gov website, and a search of Google Scholar for case law makes it evident that even the use of quotation marks does not limit the query results to those referencing the website.   There are only 2 district-court opinions referencing the phrase, “website regulations.gov” and no published cases referencing “regulations.gov website” or “regulations.gov site.”  I would still vote to keep my own article.  Bwrs ( talk ) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A government website which plays a role in lawmaking and public comment and an absolutely terrible rationale to delete.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Skynxnex.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep