Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIRACL (security firm)

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Kingdom. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, sources in the article are PR announcements and run-of-the-mill coverage that relies entirely on material provided by the company or their execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 16 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oggcast

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

There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable concept, unable to find reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical article thinly veiled as a promotion for non-notable podcasts. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:56, 9 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syhunt

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

Article lacks any reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Brazil. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally nothing about them online except for their own websites. Very obvious WP:NORG fail - might even qualify for A7. Was most likely a WP:UPE creation, surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their own website, then linkedin, then directory listings... No coverage in Gnews or anywhere else for this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 9 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.

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 Draftify‎ per reasonable requests Star Mississippi 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coverage? Please enlighten with STA. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what STA is. Examples of significant coverage and significant mentions, see page for sources of some.

Very Important People has seen host Vic Michaelis interview an assortment of characters that really can’t be described in just a few words. From Vic’s Ex-Step Grandmother (Lisa Gilroy) to Mental Health Advocate Tommy Shriggly (Zac Oyama), every improvisor brought a uniquely wild energy to Dropout’s short formseries, matched by Michaelis’ ability to perfectly adapt to every situation while keeping up their host persona. After being given full makeovers—including makeup, prosthetics and costumes—comedians come up with a character to sit down for a fully improvised interview.
(Deadline)

unique interview series
(Variety)

A sort of elevated reboot of an older CollegeHumor sketch, Very Important People tasks improv comedians with giving spur of the moment interviews after sitting through some truly incredible makeovers: ones that throw costumes and even prosthetics at blindfolded guests, leaving them transformed into aliens, misshapen body builders and, occasionally, screaming cavemen. That leaves Michaelis as the host: a character also named Vic Michaelis, though here they're playing a journalist who is in no way, they stress, the same person as themselves. That unflappable cable access-esque character is drawn from Michaelis's love of TV personalities from Carol Burnett, to Mary Tyler Moore, to Lucille Ball: all the "very physical femme comedians."
(CBC)

Dropout loves improv, so what better than to gather the cast, give them complete makeovers, and have them interviewed by Vic Michaelis, where they create their character based on the makeover they were given! (...)Very Important People is hilarious. It lets the cast get into their element and do what they do best. There are so many unforgettable and hilarious moments throughout the show, from mental health advocates to the second pig of the three little pigs. The show has a vibe and a type of humor that you can not find anywhere else, and for that, it definitely deserves a watch.
(Afterbuzz)

an improvised interview show, for the Outstanding Short Form Comedy, Variety or Drama Series category, as well as submitting its host, Vic Michaelis, for Outstanding Actor in a Short Form Comedy or Drama Series.
(134th St)

We don’t often talk about the niche streaming services at ScreenHub, but I can tell you right now that Dropout is definitely worth your time and money. Featuring improv comedy shows, live DnD games, and unique game shows lead by some of the funniest people in the US right now, this rebrand of College Humour has some excellent and unique offerings that set it apart from other subscription services. My favourite of the bunch at the moment is Very Important People, a show where comedians are put in a mystery costume and must come up with a character on the spot, before being interviewed, in character, by host Vic Michaelis.
(ScreenHub AU)

Mulligan also recently appeared on Dropout's Very Important People where Vic Michaelis and another comedian sit down for a fully improvised interview. The comedian who is the guest on this talk show has had a complete make-over with costume, prosthetics, hair, and make-up all changed to create a character who they will have to originate backstory for on the spot. Mulligan joked about how he doesn't remember anything from his time as Augbert, but praised Michaelis.

ScreenRant

And I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:

The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
The Variety article only has passing coverage N
The Deadline interview is non-independent N
The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
The Polygon article is non-independent N
The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N

That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards We may sometime actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.

(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this: The list for this year's awards has come out, and no Dropout productions were nominated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CBC article alone makes this pass GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - entire AfD discussion seems to be in wrongway. The nomination was placed per lack of notability per minimal

criterion but some are commenting that the CBC interview alone passes the criterion. Is it a rationale AfD discussion? If so, then we have to accept many AfC drafts with single coverage. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, redirect to Dropout (media company) § Current and upcoming as an ATD. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:34, 11 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!} 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For Indian TV Series, we don't accept any draft not meeting WP:THREE concluding WP:SIGCOV. Then why this one should be exempted? I wished for a fair debate which is not yet demonstrated. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Hydronium Hydroxide's source analysis and the creator's request. I don't see sufficient significant coverage but it's reasonable to expect more. Contrary to one of the "keep" !votes the show has not been Emmy-nominated, just submitted for consideration, so it doesn't pass on those grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 21 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.

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 QI#Other media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News

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

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [1]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to QI#Other_media -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one is really strange. NO WP:THREE meeting WP:SIGCOV, still users are not interested. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for reliable sources with SIGCOV, but can’t find single. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 03:35, 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

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

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 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!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no "Independent Content" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 16 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.

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 but move to Hawk Tuah Girl and make it primarily about the meme rather than the person. This is one of those strange discussions where everybody essentially agrees (or at least doesn't disagree) on that facts but reaches different conclusions about the outcome. There's agreement that there is enough sourcing. There's agreement that this source concerns an otherwise low-profile living person who is only known for one event. There's agreement that this doesn't mean that the event itself (the 'Hawk Tuah' meme) can't be notable even if the subject isn't. The !votes are pretty much equally split and pretty much equally policy-based, so that doesn't get us anywhere. The only path I can chart through this is to base the outcome on the following observations:

There is no consensus for outright deletion
There is a consensus that if the current subject is notable, she is only notable for one event
Editing the article to adjust its scope would address this and is therefore preferred to deletion

– Joe (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several internet celebrities and personalities with their own articles. Ben76266 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic
Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g 🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison? Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article.

"Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff(talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizz or gyatt XanderK09 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case scenario, move the article to Hawk Tuah and redirect Haliey Welch to it. But I think it's pretty clear that we're at the point where Welch herself is notable. See Tay Zonday / Chocolate Rain. 162 etc. (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like "your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // Gargaj (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you think this should be kept? ato—mic 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, the person is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event (a TikTok interview that went viral) is not significant. Zacwill (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Echoing what other users have pointed out, the subject of the article is known only for one thing. Unless the subject gains notability in the future for something else, this article should be deleted as opposed to draftified, as there already exists an article for this subject in draftspace. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 06:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only was she known for her catchphrase, but she also received over a million followers on TikTok insanely quickly. Especially with her capitalizing on the meme. As the other "Keep" votes noted, she is like Bhad Bhabie in which she became known for her catchphrase. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follower counts aren't relevant in notability discussions, and Bhad Babie's bio article is primarily about her musical career. Maybe we can revisit this discussion if Welch becomes a successful musician or something. But it seems like Hawk Tuah's time in the media spotlight has already come to an end (at least for now, who knows if she'll be relevant again in the future). That the deletion discussion lasted longer than her fifteen minutes of fame should give us some pause. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. A quick Google search will review she is still being covered, with multiple articles per day. RTredwell (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But which outlets are still pumping out multiple articles about her per day? The Daily Mail? TMZ? It's been roughly a week since any reliable outlet mentioned her, and even then, there's only been a handful published in the last two weeks. Her day in the sun is over. That doesn't mean she'll never be article-worthy, but she certainly isn't yet. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:TOOSOON, some articles about disasters or events that are recent I haven't seen a notice about this.

For WP:SINGLEEVENT, (this may not count) articles about the Super Bowl, the event only happens on those days pacifically. And the players involved in the football game may not return to the Super Bowl.

Turning it into a draft probably would be a good idea if the article doesn't apply to the rules. Tonkarooson (discuss). 22:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Periodically, an article like this comes along that illustrates the absurdity of the WP "notability via sources" idea, by which I mean the idea that the existence of sources is a sufficient condition for an article. The growing corpus of non-encylcopedic content across WP should convince all of us that sources are instead a necessary (but not sufficient) condition and that editors' jobs require added judgements of things like accomplishment to assess the encyclopedic value of the articles that should appear here. (Otherwise, going forward, we should just let AI slurp-in all sources and auto-create articles.) I think it should be clear that there's no encyclopedic content here and, that at a minimum, we would look to WP:ONEEVENT for a softer delete that would not rule-out recreation if this person actually makes notable contributions in the future, as opposed to being forgotten about, once the novelty of her comment runs its course. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're evaluating this particular deletion against WP:GNG, not your desire to have an editorial bar for "accomplishment". Jpatokal (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered a notable contribution? Would you classify a music group that had a 1 hit wonder and never heard from again as notable? The very definition of notable is "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable." She definitely qualifies for that, she got her attention, and obviously she is still getting it, by using her new found fame. Just like others, being famous for being famous is sadly notable in these times. Pirhounix (talk) 10:42, 19 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet television providers

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

Very vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 4 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!} 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article feels like a victim of the times. It was created 15 years ago, when streaming services were nascent and Netflix's only existed in the United States. Now, there are lots of flavors of internet TV, from on-demand streaming services like Netflix etc. to virtual MVPDs that mirror the cable bundle and free ad-supported streaming television that is typically a series of linear channels. The page size graph mirrors this explosion: from 2015 to 2017, it grew from 8 kB to 35 kB, and it went from 47 to 64 kB in the last two years. We have hit a point where a list presents more maintenance load than it is worth. WP:CLN notes, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. This, I believe, has happened to the topic as a result of secular growth. Category:Internet television streaming services was created in 2018 and has some 130 entries. Someone should review the entries in the list and look to see that relevant ones are in that category. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:24, 13 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mogenet

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

Was likely created by WP:COI subject. Unclear notability from WP:BIO. Brief mention of subject in RS doesn't pass WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Software, and France. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis: 1. Bilanz (Handelsblatt) is likely sigcov but, as a trade magazine, may be paid. 2. Telegraph has less than one sentence of coverage about him, not sigcov. 3. Le Monde has only quotes, zero sigcov. 4. Wired Italy mentions his name a whopping 15 times, but has no sigcov of him or his biography, only quotes. 5. Le Temps (link is broken, the article can be found here) also only mentions him, no sigcov.

Since this is a COI creation I will not bother to search for other sources. If another editor with more patience than me finds enough new sources to meet the GNG, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per what's written above, especially the bit about COI creation MaskedSinger (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. In-depth coverage by multiple unrelated sources indicating encyclopedically WP:DUE biographical prose appears absent. WP:COI concerns are well-founded, but merely explain this article's existence. If the subject were notable, the article would merit a rewrite from scratch by someone who is not the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like it's about someone who isn't quite famous enough yet to justify a whole page. Waqar💬 18:24, 6 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.

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

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

I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Internet, Websites, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 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!} 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I could find no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, unfortunately. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:29, 17 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Lerner

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume type material. Was a journalist, then started a coffee house, then a coffee flavoring company and now runs a web design company. The closest thing to a GNG references is (circa now) #3 which is an interview. #1 is a bio on his employer's web site, #2 appears to be a self-written bio. Tagged by others for notability since January. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tax accountant, a doctor and an obituary for three unrelated people are what I find... Nothing about this individual, who appears to have had a rather routine life. I don't see why he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a fair amount about the coffee shop he founded, but much of that is about later owners/managers. There is the local article when he sells his share of the business (which I can only partially see), but that's not enough for GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:33, 5 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.

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 after the nominator changed their view. Owen× ☎ 07:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporgery

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

Wholly non-notable, and seemingly not a clearly independent concept. I think this article only exists for the very incidental Scientology connection. Remsense诉 22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like it would be a notable concept, but all I can find are blogs, WP mirrors, and archives of Usenet discussions. References cited are all from 1998-99, unsurprisingly. I could maybe live with a redirect to Spamming or a partial merge with the "In different media" section of that article, if the Scientology connections were removed or slimmed down to a sentence or two. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I spent quite a bit of time reading articles related to this subject and found that the term sporgery has long been added to the internet lexicon. Though its origins and usage are related to Usenet newsgroups (1990s), which are in practice rarely used nowadays, I found the use of the term several times in the waning and post-usenet era (2000+). I have updated the article accordingly, as well as updating the related articles alt.religion.scientology and Scientology and the Internet. There were multiple sources I did not add, which mentioned sporgery in their discussions about "language"; they were brief mentions, but I found it interesting they even used the term in their examples, since it seems obscure, but perhaps not as obscure as first thought. (Note that sporgery is used in 5 non-Scientology-related Wikipedia articles. ) There were other contemporary sources I was unsuccessful accessing, such as a SpringerLink item (Wikipedia Library's subscription to Springer has expired) which would add to the contemporary sources now cited in the article—such as Koch, Harley, and Hicks—bringing the topic up to a verifiable level of passing WP:GNG, which wasn't obvious in the version that was nominated for AfD.
If, however, this AfD leans towards "not-Keep", then I would suggest dumping (merging) the majority of the content underneath alt.religion.scientology § Flooding the newsgroup (where I can clean that up), and the generic content into Newsgroup spam. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sleuthing. I wouldn't have nominated the article if I came across it in this state, suffice it to say. Remsense诉 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a validly referenced historical "old Internet" topic. Geschichte (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to Grorp for the WP:HEY save. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 8 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.

TFhost

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 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]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 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]

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 no consensus‎. After discarding the clearly canvassed votes, and the views not based on P&G (or incorrectly based on them), we're left with no consensus either way. Since the subject of the article chose a public life, arguments for privacy have limited weight here. Broad participation, including by some of the project's most experienced editors, makes it unlikely relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF doesn't offer much definition of who counts as an NPF, but links to WP:LOWPROFILE. That says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Knight today does not seek out media attention, but from 2015-8, she was an active campaigner and political candidate, clearly repeatedly seeking media attention. Ergo, she does not come under WP:NPF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Knight is an important figure in the recent history and controversies of Green Party of England and Wales as the article shows - Knight was not just a failed politician but someone whose behaviour and actions have had ramifications across the political spectrum. Zeno27 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)

Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there has been offwiki canvassing related to this AfD: [2], and I suspect that several of the infrequently active accounts voting in this discussion are likely the result of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looking to nom (from someone with two edits) and User:Aquila ka Hecate comment, I think there is more to consider when evaluating this nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very interesting subject, but I'm not seeing the consistent, in-depth news coverage that would be required for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would do this website injustice NOT to include a trans rights activist covered by the likes of The Guardian and BBC News. Content for women's rights, trans, and other activists is already lacking here as it is. We all must do better and try to improve it by not deleting swathes of content. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45373833 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party Historyexpert2 — Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Her activism is highly notable. Agreed with the above. There's no need to delete. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on searches of Aimee Knight, this looks like a WP:BLP1E: her firing from Reddit. Many of the included sources are about her father, David Challenor, and per nom, she doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Say ocean again (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't believe we should consider BLP notability based on a subject's adjacency to the actions of another party at all, but especially not when those actions are horrifyingly awful. My concerns echo that of Rhododendrites. Say ocean again (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS both for the stuff with Reddit and for the stuff to do with her father being her campaign manager. This is certainly not a WP:BLP1E. Can do with some clean-up but is not beyond redemption to the point of WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious, easy GNG keep from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, SOFIXIT. Nor should IDONTLIKEIT arguments show their head in this venue. Carrite (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The delete votes aren't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a very difficult article about a private person. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She was the former spokesperson and electoral candidate for a political party. On face value, that says to me that she's not a private person. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't normally keep a spokesperson for a political party, especially not a minor political party, and we rarely keep articles on failed candidates. Merely running for office or being a spokesperson doesn't make you a public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see keep arguments on the basis of her being a former spokesperson or candidate. The keep arguments, at least mine, is on the basis of GNG. My comment about her being a spokesperson and former candidate was made only in reference to the claim that she is a private person. TarnishedPath^talk 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites. This is certainly an edge case but she does not appear to be notable as a political candidate. She is marginally notable due to the protest against Reddit, but as Rhododendrites notes, this is tangled up with a separate person's misdeeds. I don't think documenting a private person's troubles here is good policy - maybe she gave up some expectation of privacy via running for office, but let's be real, it was a minor party protest vote. No objection to bringing back if her political career actually goes somewhere. SnowFire (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @SportingFlyer, @Rhododendrites, @Say ocean again, and @SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd concur. I was struggling to understand why this article stood out to me amongst the dozens of political articles I've read at AfD, but notability isn't inherited. If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself - in short, the type of local activist that wouldn't normally be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes - The articles that are indirectly about his crimes are directly about her. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The indirect articles are just the local political articles I was referring to. Apart from an interview, she's not really notable outside the incident. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer suggests that If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself. Looking at the current references, there are several about her father's crimes and several that are local political articles, but other references are not that. I would pick out the following. 7 is a significant interview with a national newspaper unrelated to her father. 5 is a short interview with the same national newspaper a year earlier, unrelated to her father. 4 is not related to her father and, while a minor publication, isn't a local political article. 9, 10 are less significant publications, but national and not local, about another smaller issue involving Knight (not related to her father). 39 is about her and about her partner's behaviour, not her father's crimes, and is a national newspaper. There is then her departure from Reddit, most notably national newspaper coverage in 40. This was related to her father's crimes, but only indirectly and is broader than that (as it also relates to her partner's behaviour). Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a Society interview, where people who aren't normally famous or notable get an interview in the Guardian. The second might be okay but again is an interview and would be considered primary. The third is a blog. 9 and 10 she is simply quoted as a spokesperson, the article is not about her at all. 39 and 40 has the same problem as I mentioned - even if it wasn't her father it was her partner. There's simply not a lot here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: she clearly passes WP:GNG. There are multiple in-depth and independent reports about her. Bondegezou (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the first 10 references in the article (and there are plenty more). These are:

[3] Substantial piece about her and her father about event 1
[4] Substantial piece about her about event 2
[5] Substantial piece about her (event 2)
[6] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[7] Shorter piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[8] Substantial piece about her (event 1)
[9] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[10] Shorter piece about her (event 1)
[11] Shorter piece mentioning her (event 3)
[12] Short piece mentioning her (event 3)

There is coverage of multiple different events/stages of her life, with several substantial articles about her. As I said, this clearly passes WP:GNG. If the article needs work, fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxisediting, may I ask if you have any relation to Knight at all, even if it is being something such as an acquaintance? Considering the past history of the subject of the article (especially the brief tenure at Reddit) and this deletion page is your only edit right after you signed up, at least some suspicions are harboured. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, no relation to knight. have made anonymous edits before but stumbled across this page and just found it strange that such a minor figure had such an article, had some concerns about what the real purpose of the article was. worthwhile discussion on both sides though Maxisediting (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Say ocean again and Rhododendrite explained it best. The in-depth coverage precludes an encyclopedic article, and the incompatibility with BLP guidelines also means it doesn't need its present editing history. If this subject is notable, start all over with better coverage of claims as reported in reliable sources... JFHJr (㊟) 05:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just be aware that this discussion has also been linked to by Kiwi Farms and so there may be some interference ran by users from that site. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While as a queer person myself, I am very sympathetic to the subject as a victim of crime, I have real concerns that I share with others who have written about this. My biggest concerns are BLP and TNT. The main claims to notability are the same as those that contribute to violations of our BLP rules. It’s such a mess that it could be deleted for that reason alone. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-chosen local politician. The rest is mostly voluntary work. Looks like puffery. The sources are not specifically about her. The Banner talk 10:18, 13 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.

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. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSilver Framework

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

Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirecting and/or merging to Microsoft Silverlight is an AtD that I'm comfortable with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HyperAccelerated,

Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated, are you satisfied with the sources brought up below? -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also really should not be creating articles about subjects that you have a disclosed conflict of interest with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply @HyperAccelerated.

Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:

InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Ghacks - a tech postal has 2 articles about OpenSilver. The author of the articles is Martin Brinkmann.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
The Register - The article was written by Tim Anderson, a journalist who covers various technical topics.
Matt Eland's Blog - Kill all defects - Matt Eland is a US-based Microsoft MVP in AI interested in OpenSilver as an open-source technology for replacing MS Silverlight. Obviously, he was motivated in 2020 to write about it in his blog. He is a blogger, book, and course author.
AlternativeTo.org - it has been recognized as an alternative or in a way successor of MS Silverlight.
Distributed Memory Blog was created by an independent software developer Steve Gilham who wrote a series of tech articles related to OpenSilver.

Vasbu (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find one more source:

Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.

Vasbu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.

Vasbu (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heise online - An article written by Holger Schwichtenberg, German author of computer books.

Vasbu (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.

Vasbu (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [13], [14]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage is present, nothing seems to be wrong with WP:GNG either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated I updated the sources in the article. Please take a look when you have time to review the update. Thank you. Vasbu (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get another review of these sources brought up in this discussion. Right now, I see no consensus to Delete or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The non-blogs brought forth above are good enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vasbu. Substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:28, 21 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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan

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

WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated here given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([15]), Hindustan Times ([16]), Times of India ([17]), NPR ([18]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([19]), Youlin ([20]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([30]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 presented sources that deal with the topic as a set, so that the list meets the requirement for notability. If the sources, that can be added at any time, are judged to focus only on (a list of) memes and/or the name of the page is considered inaccurate, then rename List of Internet memes in Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I like to repeat that the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the sources IP provided above primarily focus on some memes without mentioning the subject of the article which is Internet phenomena in Pakistan. So how can it be claimed that the list meets the requirement for notability when the coverage does not even discuss the subject? And suggesting it to rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan raises the question of whether such lists are generally permissible? Typically, WP does not host such lists, although every country may have its own memes. This would be like having List of Internet memes in the United States or List of Internet memes in India. Pointless. Right? And sure If we were to pursue this, the list must meet WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE , which requires coverage directly about the list itself, not merely individual memes. This topic clearly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA so let's please avoid WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself too, then. I explained why I think this list does meet WP:NLIST: there are reliable sources discussing the subject as a set. Renaming it is just an adjustment restricting the scope (memes being Internet phenomena). Permissible, yes, very much so, for the reason that it meets the guideline about lists. Feel free to create lists of Internet memes in other countries if you have the time and interest and you can find sources. It is certainly not pointless, no, since you're asking me. The rest of the guidelines you mention etc. is not exactly necessary if you read my !vote with attention but thank you for your time and effort. Should you consider replying until I agree with your view or for other reasons, I apologise in advance for not making any further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, No, I don't expect you to agree with me. You've your opinion and I've mine, but I reserve the right to counter your arguments, if I see them not aligning with policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: INDISCRIMINATE. It's not reasonable to compile an endless list of non notable memes. Codenamewolf (talk) 12:59, 5 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!} 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan per Mushy Yank. Meets WP:NLIST which says ... a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. and WP:NEXIST says Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article These memes are discussed as a set in Urdu references as well such as [31], [32], [33], [34] in reputed publication like BBC Urdu. 91.74.118.185 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To establish WP:N based on GNG, you've provided total 04 sources but all from the same publication, BBC Urdu and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. However, that's not my primary concern. What I'm worried about is whether we truly need a List of Internet memes in Pakistan as I don't believe it still passes the WP:N test. Generally, we don't create stand-alone lists like "List of X" unless X itself is a well-established encyclopedic topic with its own standalone articles. In this case, none of the memes or phenomena have their own standalone articles, which raises concerns about potentially violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a policy on avoiding indiscriminate collections of information. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue with WP:SYNTH is concerning. Lorstaking (talk) 07:52, 12 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 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.

Other XfDs