[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

[edit]

Peanut (squirrel)

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

Received little coverage up until their death, which was hardly notable in of itself (a routine euthanization). Almost all content of note is either ultimately unimportant or can be merged into New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This village pump discussion states that social media following doesn't factor into whether someone was notable or not. Or, in this case, a squirrel that lived, got a social media following, died, and was then the subject of media sensationalism and political chatter. Departure– (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dose not deserve to be deleted. 172.59.98.13 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that? Departure– (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story may develop further; I don't think the squirrel will. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately, the squirrel will not develop further. That's the point of the internationally sourced coverage, the why's and how's of this event. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine a scenario in which we have separate articles for the squirrel and the death of the squirrel. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A lot of things suddenly go viral but then fizzle out. If Trump hits the campaign trail with a proposed animal welfare law named after Peanut, or if Peanut becomes a long-lasting internet meme, or something along those lines, keep the page. If everyone forgets about it by next week, remove it. Bremps... 21:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an appropriate use of the Draft: space. Instead, either we keep it now (and if there's no sustained coverage, then we can delete it in a couple of years), or we delete it now (and if there's coverage in the future, someone can ask for a WP:REFUND). Dumping an article in the Draft: space to avoid making a decision is just kicking the can down the road: we'd be creating problems for editors in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before this gets closed as speedy keep, I just want to ask, what makes the coverage anything more than sensationalism? What effects will this have once everything's said and done? Departure– (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://tenor.com/view/meme-im-sayin-like-thats-what-im-sayin-gif-24363099 Bremps... 22:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's much too early to call for WP:SNOW. The argument about 'legalised animal abuse' sounds more like trying to right great wrongs than any sort of argument for the notability of this squirrel in particular. And the ITN discussion is on hold while this AfD is debated, which is the correct way around. We absolutely should not be trying to push this article to the main page when it's not clear that we should have the article at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern GenevieveDEon, and will explain further. The notability for the topic comes in two stages: first, the squirrel's long-time internet notability, and second, its death (the topic of 'Recent deaths') and the swirl of public comment and media coverage surrounding it. My comment was not to right a great wrong but to focus on notability. The squirrel and the manner of treatment is making international news and media coverage across the U.S. A snow close seems appropriate as it seems obvious that notability in independent sources has been achieved. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable, discussed by people such as Elon Musk. Has gained significant attention on sources such as CNN. Jattlife121 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk will, frankly, say or do anything for attention. We're not a gossip magazine, we're an encyclopedia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a user driven encyclopedia. You are not the one writing it. If users want a page on it, who are you to say otherwise? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The news is having strong repercussions even outside the United States. Maybe move to "Euthanasia of Peanut the Squirrel", since the event itself was more notable than the animal. Svartner (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination was premature. There are stories coming out hourly from American and international news outlets. It would have been far better to tag the article now for notability concerns and, if the concerns were valid, nominate for deletion a week or two later to assess all the sources properly. Thriley (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are multiple articles dedicated to animals who were killed, notably Harambe, Travis, Tyke, as well as categories for annual notable Animal Deaths, which this would fit into for 2024. Otherwise general notability and sources are sufficient. Lacanic (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course other stuff exists. But I don't believe general notability is met here. For one thing, we have a 'reaction' sub-section for someone who did not, in fact, react at all. There's nothing here to suggest that this entire story isn't minute trivia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What notority did Harambe have before his death? What changed about zoo enclosures since then? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quickly comment to say that Peanuts was a squirrel and didn't kill or do anything that can be feigned as injury to those around them. Even then. If a squirrel in my hometown had rabies and singlehandedly caused multiple fatalities, before the state euthanized it, that wouldn't be deserving of an article, would it? I fail to see how having a social media presence does anything for notability beyond sensationalizing it. Departure– (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a rabies outbreak event would be noteworthy. Are you really questioning that? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EGGBUTTEATERLOL (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta specify. Bremps... 05:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious draftify, but hey, who cares about sustained coverage when you can create articles off of short-term sensationalism. Seriously though, what do we lose in draftifying here? To me, this is almost celebrity sensationalism. A drummed-up clickbait-esque controversy. Yes, there is coverage. Current coverage. Why not draftify and re-evaluate in, say, even just a week? And seriously, we can't keep saying "someone notable said something about this story so it must meet NEVENT". That's not how notability does and quite frankly should work here. I mean, really, what are we doing here? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV of the squirrel and one of the sources is the WP:NYPOST. Coverage needs to be significant and not just fleeting news coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the SigCov on the squirrel, at least something about the subject should be covered somewhere. Failing the preservation of this article, Redirect to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation#2024. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown, I've just made some edits to expand upon the pre-Death notability. Davisonio (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is no article about Fred the racoon, killed in the same story, thus meaning this animal has gained a certain amount of notoriety in the issue of wildlife conservation as a pet. Bouzinac (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May well get more write-in votes for president at this point than some third-party candidates. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only serious potential or even slightly plausible reasons for this deletion among the 14 listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy are numbers 8 (failure to meet the relevant notability guidelines) or 11 (overcategorization). Reason #8 is clearly nullified by guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability because of voluminous news coverage. So the only remaining deletion option (within normal policy) is to put this topic in the history of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. One media figure said this story, "has united the world at a Harambe level of virality." Now 8 years into the Harambe story, its article has 37,121 bytes, including 69 footnotes, which if included in the relevant zoo article, would inflate its size by 64%. Additionally, with so many expected links to this squirrel story, from both inside and outside Wikipedia, making such links redirect to the NY Conservation Dept would be frustrating, confusing, and highly impractically bloat that article. Samuel Erau (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A burst of news coverage is specifically not a reason for notability per WP:N and WP:NEVENT. We are looking for enduring, significant coverage, of which there isn't any, the few articles pre-death are trivial mentions. There's yet no indication that this has reached a meme status like Harambe did in the wake of that incident, so trying to compare it to that is not appropriate either. — Masem (t) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why I wrote "expected links". I'm being predictive of future interest. Samuel Erau (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CRYSTAL. Your expectation is not fact. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed. Irrelevant. That's about predictive content. I was just being predictive for the sake of this deletion decision, to avoid the inefficiencies of deletion, protest, and the predictable WP:REFUND. Samuel Erau (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using this argument, nothing would ever be deleted from Wikipedia, since the person who wrote the article is interested in it, so it should be kept? WWGB (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This is WP:INTERESTING at heart. It has still not been established that the subject of this article was notable for anything. Trivial celebrity gossip is still trivial celebrity gossip if the celebrity is a squirrel. Simply being discussed in the press is not itself a measure of notability - they'll fill their pages with something. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeout for all the people voting keep - can you quickly tell me what makes the news coverage not sensationalism? I do agree that coverage exists. I'll even say it's getting a lot of it, and from good secondary sources, too. But is this any more than so many other stories this year that are interesting but unimportant? For instance, remember that time two months ago we got a second moon? How has that affected you in any way aside from astrology? My point is it's another animal dying, but this time with a social media following. 3–4 million pets per year are euthanized so I don't see how one being a.) a squirrel and b.) Instagram-famous makes it any more notable than a cat at my local shelter who was euthanized with no fanfare. Departure– (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add onto this that news outlets in America specifically are probably proud to offer news coverage of unimportant and viral content, given that thing that's scheduled to happen in two days that the general public might not want to think about. Departure– (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the news coverage is or isn't sensationalism is not relevant to its notability - I don't see anyone clamoring for the deletion of the death of Caylee Anthony or the murder trial of O. J. Simpson. The GNG are "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." All of these criteria have been met. I think your misgivings about the article are more along the lines of WP:RECENTISM, but in my view, this article will pass the WP:10YEARTEST: I still think about Cecil the lion and Harambe today.
What sets this particular euthanization apart from the other 3-4 million euthanizations/year is that a.) it has significant media coverage, b.) most euthanizations do not involve the government forcefully entering your home to seize and destroy a healthy, well-cared for animal under threat of arrest.
And with that out of the way:
Keep – per above.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we should delete the article about the second moon? For what? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure– I think you've identified a communication failure. AFAICT, some editors use the word sensationalism to describe soft news, and especially the subgenre of oddities. Sensationalism, more narrowly defined, is turning an ordinary car wreck with minor injuries into a breathless headline such as "Emergency crews rush to life-threatening situation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am very tired of people trying to invoke WP:SNOW in situations where there is a live discussion and an issue to be resolved. It's not just a magic word to make inconvenient objections go away. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the vote stacks up 4:1, pretty clear consensus at this point. But if we want to drag this conversation on and waste more editors time, ok I guess. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling isn't a substitute for discussion. As the one who opened this deletion nomination on grounds of notability, I have yet to see how, even with the numerous Keep votes reiterating the existence of sources and "being interesting" or "popular", this isn't just another sensationalist news piece that will have any great effect to those not directly involved. Departure– (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of those policies, and I believe you're aware that historically any AfD proposal with such a massive disparity of keeps/deletes has a snowball chance in hell of succeeding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, there is no way aside from WP:IAR that a closer would delete the page, so WP:SNOW applies, especially when it is putting a hold on potential action elsewhere. It meets WP:SIGNIFICANT, which was what you asked for and said you'd be looking for in the main page discussion ("If and when the article gets more significant coverage, let me know and I'll change my vote..."). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me towards an article that proves the notability of this topic? All I see in the article is sensationalism and a tale of a man being shot down by the system - examples of which are in themselves not newsworthy and happen all the time. Departure– (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIGCOV, which the page easily meets. You may be reading into it something which isn't there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also see WP:NSUSTAINED which this page clearly does not meet. Masem (t) 15:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been four days since Peanut died, and news coverage is still ongoing. It's far too early to invoke WP:NSUSTAINED.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSUSTAINED says we should wait for that sustained coverage to happen before creating an article, its how we meed NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of NSUSTAINED, there were still sources talking in-depth about the squirrel before it was euthanized. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 5 hour raid is not a routine euthanasia 70.23.216.138 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I voted keep, I want to note that this isn't a valid argument; see this essay section. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I do agree there was coverage earlier, too. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a criterion for retention. The proposer argues that the notability of the subject is not demonstrated (and I agree); others have claimed that WP:GNG is met. The closing admin should evaluate these claims on their merits. This isn't a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it governed by how many views or external links a page receives. If a subject were notable, we should document it even if it never got read; conversely, if a subject were not notable, we should not give it its own page no matter how loud the demands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now this is an off-wiki canvassed discussion, I suppose? The page being noticed on social media isn't a formal reason to keep, nor is pageviews. Departure– (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God, I hadn't actually followed the link. They really do mean that this page, the deletion discussion, has been noticed (and actively pushed to its followers) by an account which appears to be libertarian cryptocurrency pushers. That explains some of the weird IP posting we've been getting. I'm no longer on Twitter myself, so I can't easily see the surrounding context for that post. Closing admin, please be aware of this context. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also note the Twitter post has over 118 thousand views, 150+ reposts, and mentions "a Wikipedia editor" (singular), most likely referring to the infobox on the mobile UI. At least I hope. I, as the one who opened this discussion, would much prefer not to be the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign, so I hope I'm right on that front. Departure– (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Artanisen, the animal has recived lots of covrege. If we do deleat we could merge into a larger animal about his non-profit. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially ambivalent about this as I am unsure the poor creature was sufficiently notable in its own right. That said, sometimes the circumstances surrounding a death are enough to push the subject over that line and ring the WP:N bell. I believe that is the case here. The level of coverage is bonkers and it is international. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @NotQualified, @Artanisen, @Lacanic, @Jay.Jarosz and @LuxembourgLover - WP:WAX is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.)

See the examples there. We're not arguing no animal is worthy of an article, we're arguing whether Peanut needed one. Most of the arguments against this article are stating that the coverage is sensational in nature. Departure– (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances around Harambe are extremely similar. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harambe nearly killed a kid, and then had enduring coverage due to becoming a meme in the years after. None of that applies here. Masem (t) 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The squirrel only died less than a week ago, it's too soon to say if it won't have more coverage in the future, and like I've said, the squirrel still had enough coverage before it died. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The few articles that mention the squirrel well before this point were trivial in coverage and fail SIGCOV. And if we can't judge enduring coverage now, then we shouldn't have an article to start (the whole point of NSUSTAINED) That's why we have NOTNEWS and why Wikinews exists for those that want to write about current events without the conformance to encyclopedic standards. Masem (t) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how these are trivial coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was under the impression that he became a meme much later. Excluding the meme, I think it's quite similar, but you do have a point that perhaps the media coverage wouldn't have been as widespread. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now Not a fan of how every time an article is started about a new or recent thing it's immediately nominated for deletion. IMO in order to justify a premature deletion before it's possible to adequately assess things like enduring notability, there has to be some other pressing concerns that warrant an expedited deletion (e.g. BLP vios or copyvios). Given that there are no such issues with the page, the burst of coverage in reliable, secondary sources is enough to justify keeping the page, at least for now as it's not harming anything and there is no reason to rush to delete. Are the delete !voters right to say there is no enduring notability? We won't know that for at least a few weeks. The quality of the sources we have already is pretty good: the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Guardian, NBC News, USA Today, CBS News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are all respected and generally reliable outlets that do not have a reputation for dabbling in sensationalist, trivial, gossipy, low-quality news. I'd say the best argument the delete !voters could make in favor of their position is that the discussion should be revisited in a month or so when it's more possible to substantiate statements about enduring notability or lack thereof.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that we had less premature creation of articles about the minutiae of news trivia. AfD is our best tool for countering that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rush to create articles and Don't rush to delete articles are two equally legitimate and competing (yet not mutually exclusive) viewpoints on how to handle content about events that occurred too recently to know if they will have enduring notability. But in my view, WP:DELAY is at best a guideline that editors should keep in mind before creating articles, not a legitimate reason to delete content that has already been created. There is no policy that requires editors to wait an arbitrary, unspecified amount of time before they are allowed to start a new article about a subject whose notability cannot be assessed yet. Deleting perfectly fine, non-problematic content to deter editors from creating new articles in the future accomplishes nothing and is counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Any strong claims one way or the other about the potential for notability to endure fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Don't get me wrong, I've !voted to delete bad articles about new topics before, but only when there's some other underlying problems that make the article unworthy of mainspace (BLP vios, coverage only in low-quality unreliable sources, etc). There are no such issues here. This page is perfectly fine. If the only concern is that notability won't last, wait until it's even possible to substantiate that argument with some evidence that notability did not last.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's plenty of media coverage and reliable sources about the subject. Deiadameian (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (louder for the people at the back): the existence of sources does not establish the notability of the subject. It's not been clearly demonstrated that the life and death of this squirrel is notable independent of the agency that killed it. The presence of sources does not automatically make the subject matter non-trivial, nor worthy of its own article. What is it, beyond 'people are talking about it', that sets this unfortunate creature apart? As I've said on ITNC, if someone can find a good reliable source that sets this story in its wider political context, that would go a long way towards addressing it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in reliable, secondary sources is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. And as an ITN/C regular, I can assure you that the criteria for being posted to the In The News box is not at all the same as the criteria for having a page on the encyclopedia. You might want to see some "wider political context" to be convinced that it should be listed on ITN, that's fine. I don't think I agree with that as ITN is not just for politics. But "wider political context" (whatever that could possibly mean in this context) is absolutely not a criteria for notability on Wikipedia more broadly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting that 'wider political context' is some kind of gold standard. That was a purely personal observation on my part - people seem very exercised about this case for political reasons, but nothing in our article (at the time of this writing) explains that. It looks like a cute pet with a social media account (these are ten a penny and not obviously notable) combined with a private citizen's grievance against a government agency for an injustice (also sadly extremely commonplace). But we've had drive-by posters saying things like 'overthrow the government' and 'Peanut can swing the election', and I have been told a couple of times that I'd understand why if I was American. I actually work in local administration myself, and I would be extremely surprised if (for example) one of our pest control teams killed someone's pet, and the result was a national outcry and commentary about the national government. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the existence of sources does not establish the notability of the subject As VanillaWizard pointed out above, notability is determined by reliable, secondary (and independent) sources. To say that the sources on this article (which are reliable) don't make an article notable is like saying being a human doesn't make you a Homo sapiens. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Had to go waaaay back in Gnews to try and find mentions of Peanut before the recent bout of coverage. [1] and [2], but it's stories about a squirrel living with a human, that has an instagram page. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Had the squirrel not been seized, they wouldn't be notable. A ton of coverage recently over the seizure, but nothing before that. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general notability guideline only needs multiple in-depth reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the two you provided before the squirrel's death are in-depth about the squirrel, independent, and reliable. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You just dismantled your own argument, those are two in-depth independent and reliable sources about Peanut before his death which means they warranted an article before this whole debacle. Scuba 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Justifying this article by pointing out that other animals have articles is like justifying an article about an unremarkable 6th grade science teacher because Marie Curie has an article.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper; justifying an article because there is news coverage, as opposed to secondary sources, isn’t enough. Not every news splash lasts. To have an article, something should have substantial secondary sources, or be so momentous that it obviously, no-two-ways-about-it, will.

Pointing out that closers often ignore policy doesn’t justify calling for it. Qwirkle (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that "unremarkable" 6th grade science teacher had articles from the BBC, USA Today, The Guardian and a dozen other major sources talking about them... then yeah that teacher should have an article. Scuba 17:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject was already receiving significant coverage since at least as early as 2022. [3], [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurryTime7-24 (talk • contribs)
Here's an article from PBS on a coyote. This is about the same level of coverage you brought up, but I notice that Mercy (coyote) is a red link. Departure– (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find another article on the Coyote? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not enough; also, that's WP:WAX right there, and you said that it was an argument to avoid previously. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. WP:GNG mentions the importance of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but it also refers us across to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Now it appears to me that creating an article about every creature that's mentioned by name in a news article would definitely be an indiscriminate collection of information. That's what I'm driving at here. What is it that distinguishes this cute critter with a social media account and a news mention from any other? And I think it would do a great deal to answer that question if the article's coverage of the killing of the squirrel established something of the nature of the wider outcry. At present, it merely tells us that there was such outcry, and that Peanut's owner is angry, which is predictable. What's the angle here? GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that there are multiple sources that warrant notability before the death of the squirrel. For the coyote, unless sources can be found, it does not warrant notability. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is routine coverage of wholesome animal stories doesn't guarantee notability. Mercy and so many other animals don't have articles for just this reason. Departure– (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of fact, I found a parallel situation to this deletion argument. Henrietta, a one-legged turkey from Hobart, Indiana, was stolen and that led to local coverage. The bird is, in my opinion, more notable - compare Instagram fame to prosthesis - alongside having a similar and equally unpopular fate, but didn't quite reach the front page nationally. Coverage is a.) directly concerned with the subject, b.) not connected to the subject directly, and c.) in multiple publications. Henrietta (turkey) is a red link. It was never created. It wouldn't be created today, as a few days after the story of the bird being stolen broke, coverage had ceased. The existence of multiple reliable independent sources does not automatically guarantee notability and mean that an article should exist, especially if coverage dies after a few days which I strongly suspect will happen. Departure– (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
compare Instagram fame to prosthesis? How do you determine notability? As you've said, the turkey never made national news. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that turkey had no coverage whatsoever prior to its theft. Peanut has. Furthermore, only 3 reliable sources commented on the incident that I was able to find. There are so many reliable sources that are talking about the squirrel, and it's been three days since then with more sources commenting on it every hour or so now. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot assume that the coverage will go away or stay; like VanillaWizard said, the don't rush to delete articles/create articles are both valid but WP:DELAY is essentially "not a legitimate reason to delete content that has already been created." UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, in the same way that "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument that something should exist, "other stuff does not exist" is not a strong argument that something should not exist — this is an even weaker argument, as it's less indicative of precedent. See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Yes, Mercy (coyote) doesn't have an article. Henrietta (turkey) doesn't have an article. My cats don't have articles, either. What does this have to do with whether or not this page should exist? Nothing. And who's to say that just because those pages are red links that they should stay that way? By that logic, because this page is a blue link, it too should stay that way. Maybe there's a fitting article out there that "Henrietta (turkey)" could redirect to and we just haven't identified it yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject covered by multiple reliable sources prior to recent death. significant coverage. The raid was complete overkill with large number of officials along with judicial oversight meaning that the authorities took it as a significant event rather than 1 official going to the home owner to ask about whats going on which which would be the normal reaction to a minor animal incident. Getting a judge to sign off on a search warrant is normally a major crime not a stray squirrel. Going on to kill the squirrel?? The result has been global coverage that continues to grow. I am in the UK and it has been covered by every major new organisation. significant coverageRonaldDuncan (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Net Applications

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

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trasna

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. Coverage available (both in article and in WP:BEFORE search does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT -- instead, it's all a mix of primary sources, trivial mentions, press releases, niche WP:TRADES publications and coverage that would be excluded as WP:ORGTRIV. No reasonable redirect option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colendi

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

Seems quite promotional in nature and does not satisfy WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - there are a few sources discussing this, many of which are fintech or startup-focused blogs and news sites. The one source I do recognize, Bloomberg, is also only reporting on the same $65MM that the company was able to secure, as well as a reported valuation, which is only a single topic and does not indicate notability. I can't assess WP:SIGCOV as Bloomberg is paywalled and blocks the internet archive, but I think this would need to demonstrate better WP:SIGCOV coverage in WP:RS to stand a chance. Turkish sources -may- exist with more info, but for now it looks like yet another tech startup trying to use its funding to build PR, to which I will give a resounding "no thanks" ASUKITE 17:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, Internet, Turkey, and England. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. From WP:SIRS a Fortune article wouldn't count towards notability. So the other sources in the article wouldn't as well besides maybe the Bloomberg. But even then that's just one source
Earlsofsandwich (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviencloud

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

No significant coverage. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only thing of relevance I found in the sources is "thanks to the song's distributing label, Aviencloud, whose releases are copyright-free." from edm.com IgelRM (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 33 cites, and they're basically all a combination of self-cites, things that might say the word Aviencloud somewhere in passing, and quite a few about people or businesses who have some kind of tangential relation to Aviencloud and don't even mention it. There's basically nothing here about Aviencloud, even if you try and stretch the word "significant" as if it were taffy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #comment I have reviewed the article and noticed a potential conflict of interest, as the title matches the name of the article's major contributor. Regarding its notability, the content is covered by 1 but I could not verify the reputation of this source. If it is considered reputable, it could support the page's relevance, in addition to other minor mentions. However, if it is not a credible source, the article would likely need to be deleted.Instant History (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lane

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

Unclear notability, and the info is already covered in the The Yogscast article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point if he is already mentioned- lets create a redirect that redirects the simon lane visitors over to Yogscast's article. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 16:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prison blogs

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

Fails WP:LINKFARM, linking only to external sites, with no other content besides that. Clearly unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic per WP:LINKFARM Encoded  Talk 💬 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Radhakrishnan

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

Promotional article created by a sock who was originally blocked for UPE. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The last AFD opened by TheWikiholic was closed as no consensus. However the editors I'm tla and Rydex64 (page creator) who voted to keep the article have been blocked for socking and UPE. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Mann

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

Highly promotional in nature and questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

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

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors be satisfied with draftification at this point since this just might be TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Yes, draftification would be a good idea for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMX Mail

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

A before struggles to find any in-depth coverage in independent sources fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. GMX was a very popular email service in Germany in the early 2000s. Horst-Dieter Radke's 2004 book GMX: Mail und mehr is entirely about GMX webmail, and several other Markt+Technik-published books have shorter sections on GMX. ZDNet Deutschland reported on security problems and missing email in 2000. It'd be worth checking archives for German computer magazines com! and c't as well, if anyone's got access to them (coverage on IA is spotty, but it appears that c't 2011 issue 5 had a discussion of GMX's mail services for mobile phones, for example). Adam Sampson (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet (Central Asia)

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

No refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 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) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JoonYong Park

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

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Very little coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mostly primary sources... press releases, a few interviews which per WP:INTERVIEWS would be primary sources, and the one small independent secondary source (the AdAge piece, ref #1 and #7) is the same piece just republished. WP:BEFORE search just shows more primary sources, social media, LinkedIn posts, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour Civilization

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

This article is about an insignificant passing internet meme that, like many others, fails the general notability guidelines. Every source in use here is from a tabloid, borderline unreliable source (save for Rolling Stone) that talks about a brief internet trend rather the series itself. To go into specifics, Daily Dot and Dexerto are tabloids that should be used with caution and cannot demonstrate notability per WP:RSP, IMBD is user-generated content and is unreliable as a result per WP:IMBD, and Times Now is an undiscussed source, but due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it doesn't look good. And even if these sources were reliable, they are mostly just showcasing social media posts and don't actually hold any critical commentary. The show also fails WP:SUSTAINED, since every source was published in a short time frame, and nothing new has been written about the subject since as found by my WP:BEFORE searches. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well argued nom. There appears to be a dearth of WP:INDEPTH WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic of the article (and not a tangentially related meme [which also doesn't pass the bar of WP:N]). Only the Rolling Stone article meets all the criteria that are needed to contribute to WP:GNG, and we can't hang an article on one source. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draft, as the page creator, I agree that it doesn't reach notability guidelines. Mainly due to WP:SUSTAINED like you mentioned. The page itself has brought myself a overload of anxiety due to the fact I thought for sure it was going to get deleted at some point. The Rolling Stone article is the only thing that actually gives anything insightful on the topic, but Wikipedia needs at least two reliable sources that meet the criteria to be considered notable. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the best outcome would be. The subject itself is only ~60% of the way to being considered notable, though, It could be possible it gains another notable source at some point in the future. (no idea if that'd be bringing it back to draft or just appealing it when the time comes)
Please do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but as for now I'd appreciate if it was sent back to draft space or deleted. ^-^ Kaixvny (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, there is no real "criteria" for what makes something notable or not. The notability guidelines only calls for "multiple" reliable sources. So depending on the depth of the sources at hand (multiple pages, academic coverage, etc.), that number could be as low as two, but many people writing about pop-culture topics sourced to news websites generally try and aim for three in-depth sources (though, again, this is not a requirement). But this doesn't really meet that anyways. With that being said, I'm sorry if worrying about if the article would survive or not stressed you out. It's just part of the learning process on Wikipedia that I have faced myself, as have many others. It takes a while to learn and get used to, but in the end it works out. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I think i pulled the number two from HELP:AFD in "How to save the article.", I completely agree, and I'm glad this page is finally getting a outcome, it feels much more like breather than anything. As later on during its lifespan, I realized how much I stretched out the sources I had, and the fact it was a ticking time-bomb. Like I said, I still believe it it could eventually reach notability/better coverage in the future but not as of this moment, though could It possibly be shrunken down into a paragraph in List of Internet phenomenas? Honestly, it may still be too un-notable for that but I'm just thinking of other possible outcomes. Kaixvny (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about nominate this article myself, but forgot about it. I agree with everything NegativeMP1 said. My search on DDG and Google showed up no other usable source besides a questionable source Dexerto. Ca talk to me! 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification works too, although I feel like all the coverage are just flash in the pan. Ca talk to me! 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can say, if the only sources are the series itself and IMdB is allowed, then why isn't Battle for Dream Island?. All of these points have been brought up against the series, what's different about that? not to mention on youtube they are of very close subscriber count. Think about that before saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyllstru (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixvny, this isn't the place to discuss the inclusion of BFDI or any other article, but instead for Parkour Civilization, which should be done on Policies and Guidelines. I will note that nobody thus far (even the article's author) have advocated keep, so I don't know where you've got the idea that there is some hypocrisy (may I recommended reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ping, I am the page creator, replier is @Kyllstru! ^_^ Kaixvny (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. It's my fault for my over-reliance on the WP:REPLYTOOL's pinging tool, without properly checking Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/parkour-civilization-minecraft-movie-cinema-1235124169/ Yes Yes Per WP:ROLLINGSTONE. Yes There is significant coverage about the video itself, and not just talking about it being viral. ✔ Yes
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/viral-minecraft-film-parkour-civilization-gets-removed-from-letterboxd-fans-outraged-article-113949603 Yes Even though WP:NEWSORGINDIA urges editors to exercise caution, I don't see any reason to believe this is sponsored. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. These issues do not apply to this article. Yes WP:NEWSORG per Times Now - no reason to believe a reputable news organization would be unreliable when it comes to reporting on a mostly Western cultural phenomenon. Yes Despite intermingled with quotes from Twitter, analysis of the plot and its significance is plain significant coverage: hustling culture, societal injustice, and income disparity. ✔ Yes
https://www.dailydot.com/memes/parkour-civilization-meme/ Yes ~ I've gone and read the closing comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#RFC (The Daily Dot). The main arguments against The Daily Dot's reliability has been on clickbait, [fusing] opinion with factual reporting, its political coverage, which do not apply much to this article, and there is the source is probably reliable for mundane reporting on internet culture. On reading the article I do not find too much bias in the reporting, so this is probably reliable. ~ Hard to salvage, but the sentences from the tale of an oppressed individual and The dramatic tone should be addressing the video directly and in detail as required in WP:SIGCOV. ~ 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}}.
Overall I believe these sources are enough in establishing notability per WP:GNG, and verifiable enough we can write an article on it. WP:NSUSTAINED appears to primarily talk about people and events, and for articles in other topics in general, no explicit words are given that sustained coverage is a requirement, but consideration should still be applied per context. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provide very surface-level commentary on the show. The only third-party fact in the article (that is, not view count, voice actors, release medium, etc) is the fact that it inspired the meme "NO ONE chooses to jump for the beef". Any further coverage seems unlikely since the meme has already in its deathbed, unlike Skibidi Toilet or TADC. Ca talk to me! 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) edited for typo 11:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article were you referring to? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The fact that there is a dearth of third-party content in the article creates WP:NPOV concerns, leading to WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations: Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Ca talk to me! 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The article as it currently stands is not a permanent stub and works fine as a standalone article to me. I'm not sure what you mean by third-party content though. The article is about the video series so it would make sense to talk about the video series? It is unclear to me where the NPOV issues are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my personal view that if every fact in an article can be sourced to primary sources. without any original research, that article would be quite useless. In this case, viewcounts, the creator, plot, and the release date can all be sourced to the YouTube channel without needing any interpretation by secondary sources. Ca talk to me! 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I second Ca's comments. This isn't enough and what there is is basically flash-in-the-plan. And I would definitely say SUSTAINED should be taken into account regardless of it being a "requirement" or not. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't told me which sources fail significant coverage and why. The articles I have listed do, in my opinion, [address] the topic directly and in detail. I'm not sure what you mean by taking SUSTAINED into account. I've read sustained multiple times and I am unsure how that can be applied to a deletion discussion. If this passes GNG, then it is presumed notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it doesn't pass GNG. You're basically working with one and a half sources, and I'm personally referring to the Times Now article (not sure what Ca is referring to). What is there is very surface level, and it's still mostly just rehashing social media comments. It's the type of source that would be thrown out in most deletion discussions. And the Daily Dot should be disqualified to establish notability due to its faultiness as a source. If another source or two came out then it'd be fine, but right now it's too soon. And applying SUSTAINED to a deletion discussion is very simple: maybe it's a bad sign for whether or not something is actually notable if all of the coverage that exists for a subject was published in the span of a few days, and then never again. λ NegativeMP1 16:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why Daily Dot should not be completely disqualified, and I'd like to hear more reasoning than just affirming its faultiness as a source.
As for Times Now, I'm really not sure what you mean by surface level when the third and fourth paragraph addresses the film directly and in detail. I do agree that the way it is written sounds AI-y and I am less enthusiastic about that.
On the whole, I still believe this passes GNG, even if just on the border line. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is marked by WP:RSP as there being absolutely no consensus regarding its reliability in general, then I do not think it should be used to establish notability in a case like this and even your own source assessment table marks it as "partial". And if a source sounds machine-generated, why are you arguing for its usage? And both paragraphs you highlight are literally just plot summary as well as a few dashes of what fans think of the series. There is no actual critical commentary from what the article author themselves thinks beyond "this exists".
And to solidify this further, this article was written by an author who has worked with Sportskeeda, which is an unreliable content farm and this article honestly reminds me of something that would come from Sportskeeda based on how its written (which, as you've said, could very well have been done by AI). So again, I will repeat, this weirdly-worded social media post rehashing page does not contribute to the subjects notability. Take into account the actual contents of these sources. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus does not mean consensus against. It just means that additional considerations apply. And in this case I don't think the additional considerations pose too much concern on how it can be used to establish notability.
That said, even though I believe this passes GNG, I'm not opposed to a closure with WP:TOOSOON. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rousseau Grigg

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

May not meet WP:ENT or WP:SIGCOV. Minimal sourcing outside of her death. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for new sources that apparently exist. The keep !votes should provide the references they think that show notability, rather than simply putting out a carpet term that notability exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous Relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

68.230.53.144, most of the biographical articles on Wikipedia are about people who have passed away. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a substantial !vote that evaluates the available sources, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: She only seems to be notable for dying. The article even states the person doesn't know what her appeal is on tik tok, she's deleted the app and didn't want to go viral. I don't see what their schtick was, like why were they so popular? Outside of passing away, there isn't much coverage of this person, besides getting married and not knowing what her fame is. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[edit]
  1. ^ https://x.com/DegenerateNews/status/1852848413345227065
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1255085062"