Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Internet. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} 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 Internet. 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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

edit

Haz al-Din

edit
Haz al-Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion. CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha

edit
WikiBhasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio Group

edit
Wikio Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly PR and the company website also draws a blank. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 3:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Habari

edit
AfDs for this article:
Habari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gen Z Revolution of 2024

edit
The Gen Z Revolution of 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pure WP:POV fork of Kenya Finance Bill protests. No sources claim it is a different subject. Panam2014 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution is not a protest. Infact Kenya has had protest since 1969 but non were revolutionary. Bengula Jacob (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same subject per sources. Panam2014 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
the article adds new information stays aways from the protests and focuses on other issues.
* The article is properly sourced from major news sources that describe the event in a similar manner~~~~ DancingWisdom (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an exception as it falls in the WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUBPOV~~~~ DancingWisdom (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False. No source claims it is not the same subject. Panam2014 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus the article as a whole is very essay-like. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article is WP:POVFORK of Kenya Finance Bill protests. Tylusine : talk 2 me 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X.com

edit
X.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Twitter as it is the clear primary topic in a WP:2DABS situation. Page view stats show views for the DAB peaked in late July 2023, when the rebranding was announced. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at WikiNav for X.com which shows us the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream for the month of June. There were 33.1k incoming views, which is a big mass of readers, yet only we could identify only 2.89k outgoing clickstreams towards the proposed primary topic (~9%), plus 1.21k to the historical bank topic (~3.5%), and 752 to the concept of single-letter domains (~2%) which is the first link.
A view of clickstreams from X.com for the last three months

From the clickstream archive:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:
  • X.com X.com_(bank) link 1035
  • X.com Twitter link 1025
  • X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 507
  • X.com XCOM link 62
  • X.com X_Corp. link 47
  • X.com Main_Page other 41
  • X.com X.Org link 27
  • X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game link 26
  • X.com X_(disambiguation) link 13
  • total: 2783 to 9 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:
  • X.com Twitter link 2041
  • X.com X.com_(bank) link 1816
  • X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 772
  • X.com X_Corp. link 108
  • X.com XCOM link 94
  • X.com Main_Page other 55
  • X.com X.Org link 46
  • X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game link 41
  • X.com X_(disambiguation) link 31
  • X.com EXCOMM link 12
  • total: 5016 to 10 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:
  • X.com Twitter link 2893
  • X.com X.com_(bank) link 1214
  • X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 752
  • X.com XCOM link 177
  • X.com Main_Page other 85
  • X.com X_Corp. link 74
  • X.com X.Org link 65
  • X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game other 28
  • X.com Twitter_under_Elon_Musk other 27
  • X.com X_(disambiguation) link 26
  • X.com EXCOMM link 14
  • X.com X other 10
  • total: 5365 to 12 identified destinations
So Twitter only overtook the other meanings recently. Since it's a very short, straightforward list, it doesn't seem likely that most of these readers were very confused. If we just discard all the traffic that didn't click through (which is like magical thinking, but possibly useful for the purpose of comparison), for June the ratios are ~54% Twitter, ~22% bank, ~14% concept. I wouldn't say this was typically considered primary topic. The trend line is favorable, so maybe in a few months time it might become more efficient to explain this inside the Twitter article and move this disambiguation page aside. --Joy (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting to look at overall monthy page views for these topics. Twitter has seen a huge surge in traffic over the last couple of years, but it's recently subsided. Given this general amount of interest, I'd have expected the surge in interest in Twitter as X.com to match it, but it didn't, it's only started to happen more recently. --Joy (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This data is insightful and admittedly furthers the prior consensus from the most recent RM at Talk:Twitter/Archive 10#Requested move 17 May 2024 that the "X.com" domain is not entirely the primary or more common name yet despite being synonymous with Twitter. Should any concrete data prove otherwise at a later date, a new discussion would need to be had regarding this, given that consensus directly affects this DAB. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Boëton

edit
Quentin Boëton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the author is notable. I can't find enough independent reliable secondary sources covering his work. --Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO, all sources I could find are either interviews or passing mentions.
BilletsMauves€500 13:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

edit
AfDs for this article:
9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Wikipedia:Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Withdrawn. Keep as it has enough coverage of the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago. C F A 💬 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity policy you linked says:
"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.
The recentism page also says
"Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."
This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:
  • Westling, C.E.I.; Palmer, S.; McKinney, J.; Di Benedetto, S.A. (2020). Immersion and Participation in Punchdrunk's Theatrical Worlds. Performance and Design. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-350-10197-5.
  • Skains, R.L. (2022). Neverending Stories: The Popular Emergence of Digital Fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-6493-8.
  • Stuart, Thomas M. (1 October 2018). "The vast and omnivorous cloud". Horror Studies. 9 (2): 151–160. doi:10.1386/host.9.2.151_2. ISSN 2040-3275.
  • Crawford, Joseph (1 July 2019). "Chapter 5 Gothic Digital Technologies". Twenty-First-Century Gothic. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.1515/9781474440943-007. ISBN 978-1-4744-4094-3.
I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete. C F A 💬 03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, (edit conflict). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Pantoja

edit
Rudy Pantoja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. The subject of a short-lived meme in 2016; otherwise non-notable. Astaire (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZipZoomfly

edit
ZipZoomfly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale "Non-notable, defunct retailer. None of the current sources are actual coverage of the company in reliable sources, merely being things such as database listing or user generated content like reviews. Searching for sources under both the "ZipZoomfly" and "Googlegear" names did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources." An IP user contacted me on my Talk page requesting to contest the PROD with this rationale: "ZipZoomFly.com aka GoogleGear.com was an important part of early internet history and a popular place to shop before newegg was founded. The lawsuit between them and google.com (alphabet) was a noteworthy case of parody vs trademark. The page is worth keeping because their are lessons to be learned from it's downfall." I don't agree that reasoning is sufficient to address the sourcing issues that keep this company from passing the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but since the PROD was contested, I am moving it to AFD for discussion instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with IP. The suit with Google over the naming was notable at the time, and as a computer retailer, they were well and widely known during their heyday - for example, on Anandtech, they were listed in price comparisons against NewEgg, TigerDirect, and Buy.com.[1] In the grander scheme of things, they were just an early online PC component retailer, but as a bit of early online history, they are modestly notable. I'd vote to keep it, but per notability guidelines I'm uncertain enough to say that we need more eyeballs on it to assess.
I've updated and replaced a number of of the sources, just to conform better w/policy and guidelines. Regrettably, I could find no mention of their demise from reliable sources; only many comments within PC-focused forums at the time, which of course are not considered reliable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I sympathize with the IP's and anastrophe's desire to keep early internet history, this company isn't notable. BEFORE didn't show any RS. Of the current references:
  • 1 is paywalled, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's a good reference.
  • 2 is the Google suit, a primary document, fails RS
  • 3, 4, 8, 9 are the company's own website, fails IS
  • 5, 6 are user-generated reviews, fails RS
  • 7 is simply a business listing, fails RS/SIGCOV
  • anastrophe's find is a listing of comparable products from different retailers
I see no sources that meet GNG or NORG. Even if reference #1 is acceptable, that's not enough to establish notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All perfectly legitimate arguments, and sorry for the paywall, didn't realize at the time. The WSJ article is a good, in-depth look at the company, with the president of the company quoted several times, and their efforts to keep customers engaged in the face of growing competition detailed. Here's a 'gift' link to the article for review if interested.[2]
But, a single article in a genuinely reliable sources isn't enough. The (lack of a) preponderance of evidence in reliable sources establishing notability is prima facie. No objection to deletion (with a wee tear in my eye, heh). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And I'm not entirely certain of the propriety of sharing that 'gift' link here. By all means, let me know and I'll delete it if it's problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I was really hoping to find some great sources because the early internet (in all its Comic Sans, under-construction-gif, clashing color glory) was a magical place and preserving as much history as possible is fantastic. Let the children see what we had to do to simply visit a website, and we shall not speak of the trials of downloads! If there had been enough sources I would have been an enthusiastic keep, but alas... StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2689?cPage=4&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=
  2. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118772414008204352?st=gzpd9k9fxg7z69n&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

edit
Technology Connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [6][7], a one-paragraph entry at [8] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [9][10] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Position

edit
Logical Position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Charlotte Observer story is coverage of a new location opening that would be excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Sir

edit
Khan Sir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, Internet, and India. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Draftification is a perfectly acceptable outcome to me as nominator. I ought to have said that in the nomination. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH - Subject has a reasonable claim to notability, and I don't see what draftifying would accomplish. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The BBC source says, to me at least, that the subject of the article does indeed pass WP:BIO. We have plenty of articles on internet educators, and this person is plenty notable in India. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 July 2024 (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.

Dokibird

edit
Dokibird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the previous identity User:Hansen Sebastian, I don't see any BLP or privacy issues. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".
    and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

edit
TFhost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing++ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
    • Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing++ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1236703741"