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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article has changed, discussion has clear direction and no "deleters". (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face

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

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, Medicine, Technology, and Internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [1] and [2], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is a topic. [3] [4] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Thriley. 12u (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For clearing up the remaining issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues that cannot be fixed through normal editing? If we send it to draft it risks being pruned after inactivity which would amount to backdoor deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources news search at the top and you'll see plenty of reliable sources give this significant coverage. https://www.wired.com/story/goopcore-body-horror-age-of-instagram-face/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5c237a34-7a47-4deb-a5b4-a23e77cc88f7 etc. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those editors arguing for Draftification and those advocating Keep as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've drafted a rewrite using 6 reliable sources including those mentioned in this discussion. It's now two paragraphs with a clear scope. The sources cover a span of about 6 years. I've used named references and welcome other editors to expand where appropriate, especially Lfstevens. @Oaktree b, Samoht27, and ArvindPalaskar: you all voted draftify, does it still seem too far off the mark or is this an acceptable start? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is enough to make this page a safe Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems properly verifiable and is now sourced fairly well; notable topic with interest from major publications. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the article has been improved since the nomination, which moots out the "draftify" into purgatory !votes. There are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for the original nomination, i see the only valid ground of the nomination would have been whether the subject was "unverifiable," but it is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on present citations and also additional coverage exists which I have added: The Zoe Report and Tablet Magazine.Hkkingg (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UM.SiteMaker

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable web software. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability and certainly doesn't seem to have significant coverage.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Canada, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little coverage. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 15:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist

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

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwik PRO Analytics Suite

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

I appreciate the paid disclosure from the creator of this article, but I don't see this meeting NCORP and it should have gone through AfC. Similar appears to be have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination). Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [5]), which in counts as trivial coverage under "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ([6]). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ([7] is written by their PR manager, [8] is written by a "guest writer", and covers a merger which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, Software, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my previous assessment of this aricle before my BLAR, I substantially agree with the assessment of potential sources. All I have to add is that I reiterate my recomendation to the article creator that any such future edits go through the appropriate processes (Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Edit requests). The community's patience is not infinite, and while I do not pretend to be a barometer in this specific regard, moving through the proper channels may reduce the pace at which such patience wears. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, and BEFORE search turns up nothing else. Should this discussion result in deletion, I recommend WP:SALTing "Piwik Pro" and permutations of it given persistent efforts to reject community consensus and evade appropriate channels like AfC for paid edits. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Open Source Development Group

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this organization, and the only mentions I can find just note that they maintained the Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Either a redirect or delete would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marabunta (software)

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

Obscure P2P application with no significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any coverage at all. Even the website is down. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find much mention of it anywhere. Waqar💬 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage.Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Kashin

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

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. The remaining sources are news articles. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article are in non-RS per Cite HIghligher or appear to be primary. I don't see any sources about this person in my searches Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media of all types, then off into non-RS territory. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to have significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Diversi-Dial. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System

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

Obscure Bulletin board system, ~~which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell~~. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and California. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of existence except [9], which appears to be self-published. We cannot reliably source anything, so we should probably delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams

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

This subject is far from notable by Wikipedia’s standards. There is a major lack of significant coverage addressing the subject directly, and the ones that do mention the subject fall short of being reliable sources. Majority of the sources listed are the subjects own YouTube channel or to instagram posts, see WP:NOSOCIAL. The subject falls incredibly short of the standards that are in place by Wikipedia to establish notability, as being married to someone famous does not make someone notable. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia to establish notability.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shane Dawson: Certainly some major publications with news articles on him (People, Business Insider, Cosmopolitan), but only in his relation to Shane Dawson. It is a highly likely search term that can be redirected and merged. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw some really prestigious articles but all mentioning the subject as the partner of Shane Dawson. I think a merge makes perfect sense in this case. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright for lack of notability-supporting sources. What do we have?

We have YouTube videos created by our subject such as this, this -"we're pregnant!-; more self-made content, as the jargon goes, such as this or that creation; Instagram postings, such as this, for god's sake; the impressive citing of a Hollywood Reporter article, which, alas, is about something else entirely and only name-drops our subject once; more bombastic deployments of the Hollywood Reporter imprimatur, such as this listing of awards, among whose myriad of names listed is indeed our subject; and so on. There is a lot of refreshingly clean air, but not much of the solid stuff required. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Friday Media

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only reference I can find that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this (note 3, and it's an edge case for notability since it seems to come from VinePair's WP:TRADES coverage.). All other sources in this article, as well as WP:BEFORE sources offering significant coverage, are press releases or sponsored content once you click through, even the Yahoo Finance pieces. Other references on this page are to LinkedIn, the subject's own website or other primary/user-generated sources. One item of significant coverage in an independent, secondary, reliable source is not enough; we need multiple. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the Nom. We are nowhere near CORPDEPTH with the sources in the article or elsewhere. My searches find very little at all, and nothing useful. This fails WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to my check, I agree with the nominator.WP:GNG and WP:NCORP require multiple in-depth coverages, but I found only one in-depth coverage. Other sources are just press releases and promotional materials. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heightened Senses

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

nonnotable online story by nonnotable author. Looks like as self-promo SPA - Altenmann >talk 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article seems to basically be one long plot summary without any external input. If anyone wanted to read all that, then they could just read the story itself. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it lacks verifiable sources and reliable references, making it difficult to confirm the accuracy of the information. Additionally, the topic is too broad and speculative, leading to vague and unsubstantiated claims that do not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. --Assirian cat (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of significant coverage in reliable sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

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

Not at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:

CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g 🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi'ed to stop the disruption. I'm the nom, but I don't see this as controversial. If you do, please feel free to request it reverted (or do it if you're an admin) Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Portuguese sources, the coverage is not really about the organization, but is more about a claim the organization has made. All the other references brought up appear to be passing mentions (including the academic references I clicked through on Google Scholar). I think if there were one or two more solid sources, this organization would have a good argument for notability, but right now it is not there. If it is determined there is no consensus to delete or keep the article, I agree with JPxG that this needs to either be stubified and/or sent to the draft space to deal with the promotional writing. If I came across this without a few of the sources, I would think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion via G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TJ The Frenchie

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

It pains me greatly to be taking an article about such an obviously very good boy to AfD, but based on my search, he does not meet WP:GNG. The only editorial coverage I came across was from Kent Life, a local newspaper. JSFarman (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. I found a 6 March 2020 article in the Swindon Advertiser that discusses a two-year-old Frenchie-cross-American bulldog named TJ. But this Wikipedia article says TJ the Frenchie was born 19 March 2021, so this would be a different TJ. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find independent and reliable SIGCOV about the subject. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy McKinney

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

This article is about a storm chaser who received temporarily media coverage for being first on the scene of a destroyed home where all the occupants were severely injured and he rushed them to the hospital. This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E, and should be deleted. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A burst of coverage in the last 10 days around his rescue of the family, but nothing outside that event found besides brief mentions in one or two articles for the last few years. Likely PROMO, but nothing found for this youtuber. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Environment, Internet, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, no, isn't there significant coverage of the subject here and here? If we're looking for a person to be notable, then the sources should have at least several paragraphs in reliable sources. Here, McKinney isn't just notable for his rescue of a Texas family. There's coverage of him before that as per above; I think that with the enough coverage provided in the article's reliable sources, McKinney should meet WP:GNG! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a bit local. Hopefully someone here can provide the link to the relevant policy on these not counting towards GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – independent significant coverage is limited to interviews from local media, with one of the sources linked above detailing McKinney as part of a broader story on storm chasers, and the other being an interview carried out by the news station partnering with them (which may very well be promotional), putting the significant coverage and independent prongs of WP:GNG into question. These aren't much different than, say, local human-interest stories about a local restaurant owner, which would generally be insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. Not really any good targets for a merge, so deletion seems apt here. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 03:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I do know of him outside of the recent coverage burst, he honestly isn't very notable. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zella Day. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay

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

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zella Day: per nomination. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station

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

I'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to LAMP (software bundle). Star Mississippi 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages

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

There was an AfD on this previously that determined to keep this article on the basis that AfD is not a place to resolve sourcing concerns. I think there are sourcing concerns with respect to notablity, which is a valid reason to bring an AfD. I can't find any reliable article that actually makes comparisons between different AMP stacks. The two sources in the article are about individual stacks, and don't make any comparisons between different stacks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LAMP (software bundle) and redirect those that relate to AMP variants to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants. As HA has said, this article does not make any meaningful comparisons, so I don't see any objections against its inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere. I'm also pretty sure that we can find reliable sources that tell us these softwares are *AMP stacks for that platform.
After merging, redirects without mention can go through G8 or RfD later. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This is a list article, it doesn't need sourcing for each individual linked page. However, many of the linked articles have their own problems; in particular, WIMP (software bundle), AMPPS, Zend Server, and WampServer might not survive AFD. It seems plausible that either those pages might be merged here, or that, after some of them would be removed, there would not be enough content for an article separate from LAMP (software bundle). Until that is resolved, I think this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is long enough for its own article nor how there are enough mentions as a whole to meet WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aaron's comment above. I don't see how anything you brought up here pertains to WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are ten stand-alone articles on "LAMP variants that aren't on Linux", it seems reasonable that there would be a list of them somewhere (possibly at LAMP (software bundle) or BAPP rather than a stand-alone article, but somewhere). On the other hand, if six of those stand-alone articles are merged or deleted, the value of a list article is clearly decreased. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of stand-alone articles in a list and its notability have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Please read WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. - a longer list is more likely to fulfill a useful navigation purpose. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown nothing to indicate that this list fulfills any of those purposes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t see how a list of every combination is useful. Comparing the individual components makes much more sense. At most, this can be part of another article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can the nominator provide a link to th previous AFD on this article subject? That is typically included in a nomination statement or in a box by the nomination. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD can be found on the article's talk page, or by clicking here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAMP, thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LAMP (software bundle), link as appropriate from the other *AMP articles (whcih may also need merging). No apparent list topic notability, short enough for a merger. Sandstein 10:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into LAMP (software bundle) – most are already included — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles

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

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

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

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

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [10], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) user indef-blocked for disruption on AFD —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		~ One example with only one mention	~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	~ 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}}.

Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, speedy per what? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AskeeaeWiki, is this even a vote? Per what? dxneo (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he passes GNG based on the sources so far. Other stuff that may or may not count, some from the draft version:
- [11] from Ones to Watch: Site with music industry backing (Live Nation Entertainment). Not sure about their editorial standards — couldn't find anything about it on RSN or RSP.
- [12] from TheNeedleDrop: may or may not count based on your reading of RSP
- [13]: got played on the nationally-televised The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:THENEEDLEDROP:

... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.

Granted, what you linked isn't a review, it's an interview. But given the discussion is about what third-party sources could be used to justify keeping an article about Yuno Miles, I think this still fairly doesn't fit. It also doesn't help that Fantano isn't a journalist, let alone the fact that using YouTube links (of which this article currently uses two, both linking to Yuno Miles' own songs) is already considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPYT. Cadenrock1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems weak, fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I personally think Miles is a notable but unreported figure, having a large following but lacking news coverage. This means has and will continue to have his page created many times before being locked. (Discuss Roastedbeanz1 contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roastedbeanz1, why is your signature bearing @Not0nshoree. Also, I didn't get your argument here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuno Miles is very much notable. I know there's a stigma against making pages for every insignificant "soundcloud rapper", but rest assured, Yuno Miles is not one of them. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping Yuno Miles on Wikipedia. He is already a popular rapper no matter if its meme rap such as "4 Wheeler" or the "BBL Drizzy Freestyle." I think it way to late to make that happen. Diamondpro114 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show evidence using sources that meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun (yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun (yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.

Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun (talk • contribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok? Freedun (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper	Was about the rapper	Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija.	Blog, equally advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles	An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times.	Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP.	Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE	Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs.	The show is reliable and notable as well.	In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no!	✘ No
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}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.

Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun (yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [14] Freedun (yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ye i agree. Freedun (yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources are pretty scarce right now, but he did get reviewed on RapReviews and namechecked on Pitchfork. Close enough. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If the biography of living person has reliable sources and news, then, the draft shall be created (it already started the draft, so what else?). Qadri223 Talk or discuss only my contributions to the Wikipedia 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qadri223 Yes, the article meets the draft criteria, but how the heck does that mean it should be deleted? There is more history here than the Drake event as seen in the Pitchfork and RapReviews coverage above. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says only event but yuno miles has multiple songs in multiple sources so i dont think that makes sense at all. also that draft is way worse so why would we want to use that over this Freedun (yippity yap) 11:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norconex Web Crawler

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

It's a shame, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the barest of mentions in independent RS. A redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers: per nomination, currently fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage at all from independent sources Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 references listed which from independent sources.

Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see, that article was considered "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Medium.com and blogs can’t establish notability. It would be better to redirect this article to Web_crawler#Open-source_crawlers. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
Sources
1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."
2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if sources are included; per the source in the article and the sources found by the nominator. That looks fine to me. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web

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

I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [15]. Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."
2. Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě.cz [pl] (in Czech). Czech News Center. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."
3. Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz [pl]. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp×g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS	1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth	8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Entity featured on notable news websites, held talks on globally recognized platforms for journalist and his works are widely recognized. --Siagoddess (talk) 14:00, 22 May 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!} 07:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source analysis from User:TimothyBlue is compelling and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't help. User:Siagoddess is the page creator and I'm not seeing anybody else asserting keep here. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per rationale by VWF, Timothy and BursterD. Best, Reading Beans 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([16][17][18][19]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[20] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[21] [22] [23] and [24] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [25], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [26], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [27], [28], [29], [30]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Other XfDs

[1] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]