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:

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

Paul Harrell

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

Satisfies WP:BIO1E, every single reliable source are documenting about his death; and the event isn't significant enough to have an entry for him. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Firearms, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've heard of his death, but all sourcing is about his death. There isn't any coverage, nor can I find any, from before this time. Doesn't appear to be a notable youtuber, before passing on, which does not make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Dabloons

AfDs for this article:

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

In my opinion- this article survived its last deletion discussion based more on rule technicalities rather than TikTok dabloons genuinely warranting an article. The TLDR of this article is essentially "A bunch of TikTok users made up and joked about a fictional currency based on a funny internet image of a cat for 1-2 months"- hardly different from a Know Your Meme article covering any other similar brief trend.

The article subject just barely passes the bare minimum of notability standards by Wikipedia, has pretty much no impact outside of TikTok (or even that much on TikTok alone past the brief time period it was spread), and lays on thin ice. The standard of this subject being considered "significant" is pretty much carried by the fact that the NYT, Verge, Mashable and Guardian all happened to cover the Dabloons meme during its 15 minutes of fame. As time has passed, there has been no sustained coverage and this article remains a stub. I think a deletion discussion should be revived- at best merge it into list of Internet phenomena Uelly (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage last time was fine. I don't see anything past 2022 [1]. The world has moved on, but it was notable a few years ago. Seems to be a fad that came and went. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bores

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable YouTuber who doesn't meet WP:GNG. A7 may even apply. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage, this is about the best [2] ,rest are lower quality sources. None used in the article are green in Source Highlighter. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Network Abuse Clearinghouse

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

I can find reference to email abuse and spamming, but nothing to indicate notability for the org/website. The book mentions are just the same as here, confirmation it existed. Has been deleted once (ancient history, pre CSDs) so didn't think PROD appropriate. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Tay

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

Notwithstanding serious BLP concerns, the subject simply isn't notable enough to have his own article. A Singaporean Chris Chan, if you will... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

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

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Germany, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just no reliable sources even close to providing notability for this subject. No evidence of GNG whatsoever. Thismess (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chen

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

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Academic publications mentioning Chen: "is the “lite” in “alt-lite?” The discourse of white vulnerability and dominance among YouTube’s reactionaries", "Streaming to transgress: the racial politics of reactionary YouTubers and their audiences", and "Right-Wing Populism and Gender"
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media
Comment almost TOOSOON. About all I could find from before the scandal is this [3], I don't think it's enough... She will almost certainly be notable for the scandal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites to various RSs that predate the indictment. They may have been been added after your review. John2510 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple date-restricted Google search reveals that Chen is widely-known and has been widely discussed across the internet for several years. Until the recent Russian influence allegations, her actions weren't such that she would have reason to be discussed much on what Wikipedia considers RSs. Now they are and that is likely to continue. While WP is "not the news," this appears to be a significant event, the background of which will be of broad public interest for a significant period of time. Chen's personal and professional history will be of importance to readers as they seek to learn about the events. John2510 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned, Chen has been active on the internet for quite some time, which I is why I was surprised there don't seem to be strong sources to establish notability beyond this event. Looking at the present article, there isn't enough coverage RSs for notability, which is the primary concern. At present, 8/33 sources were published before the scandal broke, none of which establish notability:
1. "Man threatening Lauren Chen for being against reparations saying she will be "dealt with"" is a broken link, even in the archive
2. "‘Barbie’ Largely Praised For Feminist Themes—But Draws Anger From The Anti-Woke" has a single sentence about Chen: "BlazeTV host Lauren Chen accused studios of hiding how “INSUFFERABLY WOKE” Barbie is in promotional materials, also pointing to the film’s anti-patriarchal themes."
3. "Republicans Voting for Bill That Could Make 'Bible Illegal' Outrages MAGA" also has a single sentence about Chen: "'If you support this 'antisemitism' hate speech bill not only are you spitting on the first amendment you are openly denying the Bible as well,' wrote Blaze TV host Lauren Chen."
4. "Right-wingers start to turn on this pro-Trump propaganda group" has a single sentence about Chen: "TPUSA contributor Lauren Chen promoted white nationalist Nick Fuentes' thoughts on the Israel-Hamas war, calling his take on the conflict 'balanced and rational.'"
5. "Conservative influencers battle over Israel, ‘America First,’ and antisemitism after Hamas attack" has a single sentence about Chen: "Lauren Chen, another TPUSA influencer, re-posted a Fuentes clip condemning the 'repugnant and evil' Israeli government — and called it a 'more balanced and rational take on Israel/Palestine than the entire political class.'"
6. "Lauren Chen on why the Golden Globes was miserable to watch" is a primary source.
7. "New 'Barbie' movie is TOXIC feminism to a T – 'Ken is just a great accessory'" is a primary source.
8. "‘They STILL blame the right!’ Lauren Chen blasts MSM’s ‘very violent rhetoric’ after Trump assassination attempt" is parroting what Chen said in an interview, so it's a primary source.
If she is notable because of the event solely, then a separate article should be created about the investigation (as is being discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media) with a redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly agree with John2510 This will most likely be a significant event for a while and she will be a significant person at the center of it. Also, as John wrote, A simple date-restricted Google search reveals that Chen is widely-known and has been widely discussed across the internet for several years. Also the nominator says that " All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment". I believe she might be mistaken as there are at least three that discuss her exclusively. PaulPachad (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John2510 and PaulPachad. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PaulPachad and John2510 Andre🚐 18:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I've seen innumerable articles in the last day or about her being a Russian agent. This nomination really surprises me, given how massive this story is. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources like Media Matters and Tampa Bay Times have coverage of Chen before this came to light. SWinxy (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tampa Bay Times article has some good coverage, though it's worth noting most of the commentary regarding Chen comes from direct quotations from her videos, which wouldn't count toward notability; however, the source itself I'd say counts toward notability. I'd also question Media Matters as a questionable source given its partisan nature, especially as it introduces Chen as "an anti-LGBTQ bigot who uses her social media accounts to spread conspiratorial, far-right misinformation". Regardless of whether that's true, less inflammatory sources would be better. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sourced coverage prior to recent events, which is overkill considering that something being recent is not a valid criteria for deletion. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Chen easily has enough coverage in the media to warrant a Wikipedia article, especially considering recent events. If anything, she should've already been here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mungo Kitsch: Does the current coverage fall under WP:BLP1E/WP:CRIME, though? Although Chen has been prominent online for a while, sources haven't been provided to establish notability prior to this event. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others JSwift49 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One could perhaps make the case that Lauren Chen is a person only known for one event, I don't think that ultimately holds up. To the Tampa Bay Times link above we could add [4][5][6] and also [7][8][9]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these sources provide 1-3 sentences on Chen each. Can you find anything with SIGCOV? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can keep looking, but I don't think policy/guidelines/common practice demands it (even setting aside how the "SIG" in WP:SIGCOV is oft in the eye of the beholder). We have all the coverage one could ask for in order to get over the general notability bar thanks to the incidents of the past few days. The only question is whether we should cover the person in a page about the person, or elsewhere. Her having played a noteworthy role in multiple prior dust-ups favors the former. XOR'easter (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has Chen (or Tenet) been officially convicted of any crimes? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The legal papers just dropped today, nothing's even been started, trial-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Please note this story from The Hill from 2019: [10] Please close this AfD. Xofg (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly notable enough for inclusion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this discussion should be closed Superb Owl (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense 2600:1700:1A32:EE30:A41D:C079:4CBE:5596 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Machines Channel

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

Article is entirely sourced to YouTube links, social media pages, or the channel's website. I cannot find any third-party sources. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:WEB. The closest I could find to independent secondary coverage was a shoutout in Popular Mechanics [11] and a nearly-invisible video credit on Interesting Engineering [12], the latter of which is itself up for AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even then in the popular mechanics article, it appears to just be a nod to the content because the media on the page was sourced from the YouTube channel, a step above the minimum required attribution for a media company but does not even begin to come close to WP:SIGCOV required of the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web content. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV and also non-notable. Xegma(talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite a whopping 21 citations, the article is basically unsourced since all references are to the YouTube channel itself or to the Mega Machines webpage. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile panic

AfDs for this article:

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

This poorly written article discusses an important topic, while overlapping heavily with Problematic smartphone use ... "Mobile panic" is a nebulous idea, next to no sources, no echo on the net and is badly written and structured. I am not opposed to the content as such. Just it would be easier to start anew with a more substantial angle and title, rather than edit the whole article, with no one motivated for such a tedious job. And I suppose that is why the article has attracted so little attention and so few edits over the past 4 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGcoa (talk • contribs) 18:22, September 5, 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The capitalization of the article title was wrong. I have fixed it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-standard term for a nebulous topic that would better be discussed elsewhere. Poor content; title unsuitable for becoming a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially a personal essay version of Problematic smartphone use. "Mobile panic" appears to be a term coined by a single researcher that hasn't seen enough use to meet WP:SIGCOV. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Flame

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has been created and deleted twice before. Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brain rot

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

This article shouldn't be here because it is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICT AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 4.39.220.106 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is remit for more information about brain rot and its influence on Gen Z culture and, expanding beyond the current stub article as a mere dictionary-esque definition. It's been cited in The New Yorker and NYT this summer and I would be interested in working to build out this article.WeeMungo (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as currently exists has little specific encyclopedic value, but the concept is an important pop-cultural descriptor of a present societal development. And we have an article for enshittification, after all. This concept is analogous, and, at this point in that page's life cycle, it was similarly sparse. Now it's a pretty good article. Rework, but don't delete. Bruhpedia (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has a lot of room for expansion and the concept as a whole ties into a lot of Gen Z internet culture. It shouldn't be a simple dictionary definition in the first place. Nightheight (talk|tribs) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Gosh

AfDs for this article:

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

The article on Omar Gosh should be considered for deletion as it appears to fall short of Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. While Omar Gosh is recognized as a YouTube personality, the article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond passing mentions. The content primarily relies on self-published or primary sources, which do not adequately establish the subject's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Given the insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or influence, the article does not meet the criteria for a standalone entry and should be considered for deletion. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, United States of America, and Florida. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the last AfD had three sources listed as significant, but they seem to be local in nature and more like human interest stories than anything extensive, I don't consider them terribly helpful. I can't find anything since these were published, so I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of the "influencer"-type sources (youtube, tiktok, etc etc) but nothing independent and nothing substantial. There are some interviews, but no real bios. Lamona (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

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

The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, Arizona, and Internet. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is decent [13]. The rest are about an impersonator of his that was banned from an arena [14], [15]. Having an "impostor" pretend to be you with coverage in the Washington Post and Huff Post implies you are notable? I'd argue yes. I mean, there are no Oaktree_b impersonators, but this person seems to have several mentions of them in RS, so he's famously famous. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning if you're famous enough to have people imitate/pretend to be you in order to get stuff, I'd say you're notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this person has gotten attention for pulling pranks, and has gotten local TV mentions and some notice in reliable sources. Oaktree b, the way I read it is that he is pretending to be Klay Thompson because he resembles him (probably getting close to a legal line in doing so). Your comment seems to be that someone is impersonating Gurley, but I don't think that's the case. This is a guy pulling a stunt - to me, not notable. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UnchainedTV

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

I believe this fails WP:NORG. Aside from the promotional tone, most of the references appear to be press releases. Additionally, the reference from CBS News is just a local TV interview from KMAX-TV which is promotional in nature. The New York Times reference leads nowhere. I think redirecting this article to Jane Velez-Mitchell should be sufficient. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Websites. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Limmidy.

I really appreciate that you have taken the time to review this article. I ask that you please reconsider your recommendation "for deletion".

1. I am an avid user of UnchainedTV and am an animal rights activist. Thus, my interest in writing and publishing this article.

2. Your comment that it fails WP.NORG. : Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc.

3. WP.NORG clearly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.". According to their website they are a non-profit education institution: "UnchainedTV is part of the JaneUnChained News Network, a 501 c-3 non-profit, EIN number 82-3892784." Thus it meets the rule of "exception".

4. Well noted on the press releases, the CBS news interview, the NY Times deadline and the recommendation to link to the founder. ---After I hear back from you on the issue of "Article for Deletion", I will then fix all points in #3 above.

Again, I really appreciate your time on this. all my best, 444wiki444 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc is just blatant advertising. WP:NORG applies to all organizations, for-profit or not. The exceptions you've listed are for schools, religions and sports teams. Clearly this streaming website is not a school or any type of "educational institution". And even if was, WP:GNG still applies here. C F A 💬 00:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@444wiki444: Did you use AI to write this article? C F A 💬 01:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Both [16] and [17] are unarchived dead links and appear to focus on the "Peeled" show, not the streaming network. [18] is a blog post in an industry publication. [19] is an unarchived dead link. [20] is a trivial mention. NYT is another unarchived dead link. [21] is a republished press release. BroadWay World is an unreliable source. The other sources are republished press releases in industry (possibly non-independent) publications, the press releases themselves, the organization's website, routine coverage, or trivial mentions. Couldn't find anything better. I also don't understand how there are so many (unarchived) dead links when this article was created today? C F A 💬 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 01:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via A7 (no credible claim of significance) if possible, otherwise delete per NORG and WP:TNT. There's so much possible false information being pushed here that it would be better to remake the article through AfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO. I had to get to page 14 of a Gnews search before seeing anything that wasn't from UnchainedTV... The CBS link now in the article 404's, so doesn't load. It's here [22], a brief interview on a news program. That's fine I suppose, but if there is no other coverage in 15 pages of searches, there just isn't enough to build an article. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant WP:PROMO, the sources provided is just WP:SIGCOV failing WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue for a redirect to Jane Velez-Mitchell#2014–present: UnchainedTV, but the subject's BLP is just as much a mess about the topic. I would not use the KOVR/KMAX source either as that's clearly advertorial placement in the station's morning show of Good Day Sacramento which is not of news value. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess the creator poorly created the article, they can retry by removing unwanted stuff.NatalieTT (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Goa. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – news coverage appears to be only connected to her death. As tragic as that event was, WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:BLP1E applies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lady

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

There is no extra info here that isn't already present on Renata Sorrah#Meme. I propose that this page be redirected there. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would believe you, it'd be much better if you linked them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share some of these sources? My own search wasn't entirely fruitless but the articles I did find don't add much; certainly nothing that couldn't just be added to Renata Sorrah#Meme. GhostOfNoMeme 12:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mathematics, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfDs are for deletion not for discussing if a redirect is appropriate. That should have been made on the talk page of the article. And only if such a discussion had not allowed to reach any consensus should we have been discussing this here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even considering Portuguese-language sources I was able to find, coverage doesn't seem significant enough that it can't, per nom, simply go into Renata Sorrah#Meme. A standalone article is unwarranted. GhostOfNoMeme 12:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online panel

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

Declined PROD. This article had no sources for the last seventeen years, but when declining the PROD, the declining user jammed three refs onto the first sentence of the article that do all mention online panels. One appears to be a research paper, which is fine for verification but does not establish notability. The others appear to be brief mentions of online panels in books about market research. I don't believe notability was clearly established by WP:REFBOMBING in this fashion, so here we are. It has not been proven that there is in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't think we generally consider the <whatever> For Dummies series of books to really be something we should be basing encyclopedia content on, but that's ok because none of the content is actually based on it, it was just tacked on as a ref because a Google search showed that Online Surveys For Dummies contains the words "online panel" a few times. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first source is not a "research paper" it is an edited volume on the concept of "online panels" AKA a 500+ page book that is literally just about the article topic. The third source is not "brief" it has multiple pages discussing the pros and cons and methods of this kind of research. This appears to be a significant concept in marketing research, see here, here , here, here, dozens upon dozens more, etc. The prod said it had been unsourced for 17 years and therefore was clearly non notable which is nonsense. Also, in what world is refbombing adding three sources? My rationale for citing the less academic source is it provided a better explanation as to what the topic was and I didn't want to go jumping through hoops to find that in the edited volume to cite the first sentence. Probably not the best source but not unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on a merge, in any case that seems like one of many possible targets and a fairly arbitrary one - it doesn’t seem any closer linked to the focus group concept than many of the other marketing concepts discussed with it. There is a 500 page book about this and many many many articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book’s definition set out in its introduction is: “an online panel is a “form of access panel, defined in the international standard, ISO 20252 "Market, opinion and social research - Vocabulary and Service Requirements," as "a sample database of potential respondents who declare that they will cooperate for future data collection if selected" (International Organization for Standardization, 2012, p. 1). These panels sometimes include a very large number of people (often one million or more) who are sampled on numerous occasions and asked to complete a questionnaire for a myriad of generally unrelated studies. Originally, these panels were called discontinuous access panels […] Panel members can be re-sampled (and routinely are) to take part in another study with varying levels of frequency.” Not really a focus group since it involves many many more people while a focus group is small. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’ll try to expand it to start class tomorrow so the article actually makes clear what this is (and also because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is after writing so many words) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are now words PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well known concept in the field of research. Taking a quick look at the google scholar results, besides the sources identified by PARAKANYAA, this research paper discussing online panels in marketing research, this research paper that talks about how online panels might have specific biases and this research paper talks about alternative ways to setup online panels to provide better quality data. I also don't understand the rationale of the nom, not having sources for a long period of time has nothing to do with the topics current notability and the refbombing allegations also appear to be exaggerated, all three of the references added are relevant and show that the topic has been written about in depth. Sohom (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Focus group. Searching on scholar shows that "Online panel" and "Focus group" are closely linked concepts [23]. It makes sense to cover them in the same article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Gawin

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

The article is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly unreliable, being as follows:

[24] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed at the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
[25] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[26] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[27] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[28] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article doesn't disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
[29] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[30] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
[31] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
[32] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[33] o2.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can show that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohmini.A

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

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

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

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Enigma

AfDs for this article:

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

The Publius Enigma was a riddle created to market the 1994 Pink Floyd album The Division Bell. It received some coverage in reliable sources, which is summarised in the Division Bell article under "Release and promotion". However, there isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone article, and much of the current content is uncited (and I can't find coverage of it in reliable sources). I think this should be redirected to The Division Bell per WP:NOPAGE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Division Bell#Release and promotion per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was a standalone article for many years and satisfies the GNG. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Brain Damage Magazine, at least in its original print incarnation, is a reliable source for Pink Floyd related topics. It's also not very collaborative to delete cited content right before submitting something for deletion... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted content that was cited to unreliable sources. This was an attempt to improve the article before nominating it for deletion, not to make it worse. Brain Damage is a fanzine and can't be used as a source on Wikipedia, nor can it be used as evidence of notability. Popcornfud (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two RS... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does look better now. I'm a bit concerned about the remaining citations to faroutmagazine - that's not an actual magazine, it's just a web site, and the article cited looks very much like it was just paraphrasing the WP page as it stood at the time. The fanzine sources would be better for this, if it's just a direct quote of what a band member said in an interview. (I'm not implying that the quotes are inaccurate, just that we should give an actual source rather than citogenesis.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Division Bell is already fairly long and the sources in this article look ok after the recent improvement made by editors at Afd. Ben Azura (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. This section can cover the promotion in more depth and is not nearly near capacity. If warranted by an overabundance of sourcing, it can be split summary style. But for now, there is clearly enough room to cover this within the parent topic without warranting an immediate split. If there are sources that discuss this marketing in specific separate from the album, they should be brought here for discussion. czar 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. There are sufficient references to keep the topic, but it is of insufficient notability (or apparent public interest) to retain as a standalone article. It should be merged into the album's article as an interesting side-note to the record company promotion.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. The article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news and lacks significant independent sources that demonstrate sustained coverage or impact. Furthermore, the subject's primary notability appears to be tied to associations with celebrities, rather than achievements that would warrant a standalone article. Also the article has been deleted before. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources with significant coverage of the subject; BBC Marathi and the South China Morning Post are particularly promising. Clearly passes WP:GNG, GNG requires significant coverage of the subject, and these two coverages are not trival at all. And if I talke about the earlier AfD, it was just soft deleted means that was a PROD. GrabUp - Talk 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add a few more points. First of all, this AfD does not fulfill WP:AFDHOWTO, as the nominator did not notify the author. Secondly, I want to counter the nominator’s claim that ‘the article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news.’ My response to this is, that a person related to finance or business will naturally not receive news coverage from entertainment sources, similarly this person will not get coverage from finance-related articles. It is perfectly normal for someone to receive coverage within their relevant niche. The important factor is whether the sources meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV, which I believe is clearly satisfied in this case. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for forgetting to notify the author, it slipped my mind. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M S Hassan: You again forgot to add '(2nd nomination)' while linking to the discussion on the author's talk page, You linked to the first AfD of this article. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE to nominate any articles in the future, as it will automate everything. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree, why it's kept for deletion, without any valid reason. @M S Hassan kindly confirm before any deletion. Muffeda (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Orhan Awatramani is a notable public figure with significant media coverage in reputable sources. He has a strong social media presence and cultural influence, particularly within certain communities. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, supported by reliable, independent sources. Vakanada Putin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : it's an notable person. Muffeda (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muffeda: What made you come here? Your first edit was to vote here! Did someone ask you to vote? New editors typically don’t vote in AfD unless they are specifically told to. GrabUp - Talk 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Comment: (note to Admin) The article author Vakanada Putin and Muffeda are both blocked for sockpuppetry. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some participation from non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's obviously some sort of nonsense going on here, but the subject is clearly notable. Even ignoring all publications that could possibly be construed as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is still enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG (see GrabUp's comment above). The refbombing and blatant promotion needs to be cleaned up, though. C F A 💬 03:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BBC and the South China Post seal the notability deal, the coverage from Indian media is helpful, but these show critical notice outside of their local area, which is more than enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [34]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources provide SIGCOV helping to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are about this person, as are most of the other sources used in the article. I think we have enough to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Internet Services

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article also seems pretty promotional and mostly relies on sources tied to the organization or its subsidiaries, like stormfiber.com, which is a brand of this company. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and the cited sources are promotional. Lorstaking (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the largest ISPs in Pakistan. The citations and text need to be improved but the organisation is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isoceles-sai, This was ATA:WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Not notable with almost nil SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it comes down to whether ProPakistani.pk and Dawn are reliable sources, since there is WP:SIGCOV in the articles already linked. They're not all promotional; some feature critical news. But I don't know enough to evaluate the reliability of those sources. Would be nice to have some commentary on the reliability of these sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn is the top English language newspaper in Pakistan. Very reliable, highest quality journalism.

ProPakistani is a technology focused media, reliable with no issues with factual content, but prone to publishing promotional material, and press releases. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following the comment above, a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dawn is reliable per WP:NPPSG and there are quite a few Dawn articles that offer significant coverage of this company. ProPakistani.pk is listed as "no consensus" because there are concerns about undisclosed sponsored posts, so I wouldn't trust them for notability. Regardless, there is some coverage in other sources (ex: [35][36][37][38]) so I'm leaning towards a keep. C F A 💬 23:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In light of the reliability of Dawn and the sigcov in it, plus the sources identified by CFA, I'll !vote keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA and Dclemens1971: Are the keep votes based on Dawn's non-byline coverage currently cited in the article, which is itself derived from press releases? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have this press release for us to compare? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, Based on your comment, it seems like you're relying heavily on Dawn's coverage to justify keeping this article. There are three Dawn articles cited, but the coverage is questionable. For example, this article is clearly marked as "PR" under the image caption, indicating it's likely based on a press release. This second news story only briefly mentions the subject [Cyber Internet Services] in the context of an incident at StormFiber, a subsidiary of the subject making it routine coverage. And the third article offers just a trivial mention of the subject. None of these provide in-depth coverage of Cyber Internet Services itself. Similarly, the coverage provided by @CFA: is also questionable. Why? Because the term “PR” is clearly mentioned under the image captions, suggesting it's likely based on press releases. The coverage in Business Recorder is confirmed to be press release-based as well, as indicated by the byline. Now the question is, since when did we start keeping articles based on press release coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exclusively basing my !vote on Dawn coverage but RS/N seems to support @CFA's view and CFA brought other sources that support notability under WP:NCORP. I note you have not supplied any press release that you assert (without evidence thus far) the Dawn articles are based on. Sourcing an image to a press release is extremely common even with reliable sources, which need to attribute their images and have no reason not to use images provided by companies. That is no indication that the article itself is based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, Please check the tone of these articles - they’re clearly PROMO. We don’t always need evidence to show that a piece is based on a press release. I don’t have to add anything more on this. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFA and Dclemens1971 analysis. StormFiber is not a company or subsidiary - it is doing business as StormFiber for public internet connections. StormFiber coverage ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) does count towards Cyber Internet (additional coverage: [44], [45]). At worst, redirect to Lakson Group per WP:ATD. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the reliability of the sources has been questioned. Also, the option of a Redirect has also been proposed. Participants coming into the discussion now, please check the sources brought up in this discussion, not just the ones appearing in the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1476691	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1519863	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece, based on company's own press statement	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727236	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author	? It’s a no-byline piece	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1953039/pakistans-internet-infrastructure-get-96-tbs-boost-new-cable-system	The ET is a RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.brecorder.com/news/40211289	~ While Business Recorder is an independent news source but this is clearly marked as press release	~ Since this is based on a press release, I'm unsure	~ I don't see in-depth details about the company itself	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Nayatel

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article mostly relies on sources tied to the organization, GENREL sources and even sources thats falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The company is a regional ISP and citations are mostly reliable newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isoceles-sai, Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I count 4 non-promotional articles in national English language newspapers. Another 2 non-promotional articles in technology press. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Links? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP they are prividing 300 MB fiber internet, even PTCL is not providing 300 MB. Partner of FB as per DAWN.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, This was WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Dawn (newspaper) is RS for Pakistan. There are other sources as well. FB partner with this org showing it is leading in country. Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please avoid WP:ATA such as WP:MUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing internet access, regardless of speed, is not notable here, that's what internet companies around the globe do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the !keep votes give any rationale for no deleting the article. No SIGCOV and I agree with the nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this in-depth case study about the company in a reputed academic journal is an example of significant coverage. There is some additional negative coverage in form of controversies ([46], [47]) and some facts shared by Ameen Akbar suggest it is potentially a very notable topic per WP:GNG. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 194.213.16.36. C F A 💬 00:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lacking SIGCOV Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the sources above? C F A 💬 19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources provided by the IP discuss the company in the detail required by SIGCOV. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. Did you read the case study? This also has several paragraphs of coverage. Then there's this, this, etc. C F A 💬 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs