I'm confused about this one as to really dig into the heart of the Kano model its really about justifying Product Management in an nutshell. You could map potential health index reports (ie some products will likely have some health report they get via surveys, usability studies etc etc that could point to a Kano inference but it'd be honestly a little murky / bias driven anyway).
Kano isn't really a specific methodology or framework for scientific qualitative analysis of UX inside a product (website or desktop), it's simply as your wikipedia link suggests a "theory" only.
You could kind of cheat at this by creating a Risk Matrix style chart, swap out the Y axis for "incentive" and the X axis for "Behavior" ..then survey people to determine their WoW Effect by asking them for a scoring for first reactionary response(s) to the experience. Then keep testing the people as they use the same experience over time, essentially what you're looking for then is the decay point, in which the incentive to use drops but the behavior trends normal (in most situations if the user HAS to use the experience the behavior normally trends upwards but incentive dissipates early).
Also in order to really get into the heart of the Kano Model the Product itself has to have its features broken down into tier1, tier2, tier3 etc hierarchy then have Persona(s) that are supposed own these features be isolated and identified. Then you then have to survey each Persona to determine its health index at each persona level in order to define a complete picture.
Bottom line is it's a case by case basis depending on the Product and how mature the Product Manager is. I used to be a Product Manager of Microsoft .NET and i'd say i rarely met Product Managers in Adobe/Google/Microsoft/etc that even would consider doing the surveys let alone sharing them.