Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morbidthoughts (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 4 July 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Mogenet.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mogenet

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Software, and France. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source analysis: 1. Bilanz (Handelsblatt) is likely sigcov but, as a trade magazine, may be paid. 2. Telegraph has less than one sentence of coverage about him, not sigcov. 3. Le Monde has only quotes, zero sigcov. 4. Wired Italy mentions his name a whopping 15 times, but has no sigcov of him or his biography, only quotes. 5. Le Temps (link is broken, the article can be found here) also only mentions him, no sigcov.
Since this is a COI creation I will not bother to search for other sources. If another editor with more patience than me finds enough new sources to meet the GNG, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Kosmic Free Music Foundation

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Lerner

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

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

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

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

Sporgery

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

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

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

TFhost

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

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

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

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Leal (influencer)

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

WP:BLP of an "influencer", not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for internet personalities. The only attempted claim of notability here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not one bit of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, and simply existing as a self-appointed "influencer" is not inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 30 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 Online chat. Star Mississippi 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web chat

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

None of the three sources are proper and the article has been like that since 2014, according to the verification needed tag placed at the top. I propose deleting the article or moving to draft space until it is significantly improved. Ae245 (talk) 14:09, 30 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 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 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlgoSec

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 23:58, 29 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 no consensus‎. After discarding the clearly canvassed votes, and the views not based on P&G (or incorrectly based on them), we're left with no consensus either way. Since the subject of the article chose a public life, arguments for privacy have limited weight here. Broad participation, including by some of the project's most experienced editors, makes it unlikely relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight

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

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

WP:NPF doesn't offer much definition of who counts as an NPF, but links to WP:LOWPROFILE. That says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Knight today does not seek out media attention, but from 2015-8, she was an active campaigner and political candidate, clearly repeatedly seeking media attention. Ergo, she does not come under WP:NPF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @SportingFlyer, @Rhododendrites, @Say ocean again, and @SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd concur. I was struggling to understand why this article stood out to me amongst the dozens of political articles I've read at AfD, but notability isn't inherited. If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself - in short, the type of local activist that wouldn't normally be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes - The articles that are indirectly about his crimes are directly about her. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The indirect articles are just the local political articles I was referring to. Apart from an interview, she's not really notable outside the incident. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer suggests that If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself. Looking at the current references, there are several about her father's crimes and several that are local political articles, but other references are not that. I would pick out the following. 7 is a significant interview with a national newspaper unrelated to her father. 5 is a short interview with the same national newspaper a year earlier, unrelated to her father. 4 is not related to her father and, while a minor publication, isn't a local political article. 9, 10 are less significant publications, but national and not local, about another smaller issue involving Knight (not related to her father). 39 is about her and about her partner's behaviour, not her father's crimes, and is a national newspaper. There is then her departure from Reddit, most notably national newspaper coverage in 40. This was related to her father's crimes, but only indirectly and is broader than that (as it also relates to her partner's behaviour). Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a Society interview, where people who aren't normally famous or notable get an interview in the Guardian. The second might be okay but again is an interview and would be considered primary. The third is a blog. 9 and 10 she is simply quoted as a spokesperson, the article is not about her at all. 39 and 40 has the same problem as I mentioned - even if it wasn't her father it was her partner. There's simply not a lot here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the first 10 references in the article (and there are plenty more). These are:
  • [2] Substantial piece about her and her father about event 1
  • [3] Substantial piece about her about event 2
  • [4] Substantial piece about her (event 2)
  • [5] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [6] Shorter piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [7] Substantial piece about her (event 1)
  • [8] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [9] Shorter piece about her (event 1)
  • [10] Shorter piece mentioning her (event 3)
  • [11] Short piece mentioning her (event 3)
There is coverage of multiple different events/stages of her life, with several substantial articles about her. As I said, this clearly passes WP:GNG. If the article needs work, fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maxisediting, may I ask if you have any relation to Knight at all, even if it is being something such as an acquaintance? Considering the past history of the subject of the article (especially the brief tenure at Reddit) and this deletion page is your only edit right after you signed up, at least some suspicions are harboured. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi, no relation to knight. have made anonymous edits before but stumbled across this page and just found it strange that such a minor figure had such an article, had some concerns about what the real purpose of the article was. worthwhile discussion on both sides though Maxisediting (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just be aware that this discussion has also been linked to by Kiwi Farms and so there may be some interference ran by users from that site. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While as a queer person myself, I am very sympathetic to the subject as a victim of crime, I have real concerns that I share with others who have written about this. My biggest concerns are BLP and TNT. The main claims to notability are the same as those that contribute to violations of our BLP rules. It’s such a mess that it could be deleted for that reason alone. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-chosen local politician. The rest is mostly voluntary work. Looks like puffery. The sources are not specifically about her. The Banner talk 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovekesh Kataria

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

The existing sources in the article are mostly routine coverage from and related to Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi TV series) season 3 show which makes it a case of BLP1E. Being a contestant on a Bigg Boss show does not inherently make the subject notable. A WP:BEFORE shows that the sources go back to 2023, but they are all related to the same show. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete due to lack of notability or claim of such — Iadmc♫talk  11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira delete! 2403:6200:8851:9199:458:B9EF:9898:F8E9 (talk) 13:13, 27 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! 05:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HLSW

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 06:21, 27 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.

OpenSilver Framework

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

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

Comment: Redirecting and/or merging to Microsoft Silverlight is an AtD that I'm comfortable with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HyperAccelerated,
Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated, are you satisfied with the sources brought up below? -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also really should not be creating articles about subjects that you have a disclosed conflict of interest with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply @HyperAccelerated.
Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:
Vasbu (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please find one more source:
Vasbu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.
Vasbu (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vasbu (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.
Vasbu (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [12], [13]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@HyperAccelerated I updated the sources in the article. Please take a look when you have time to review the update. Thank you. Vasbu (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

Inquisiq R3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([14]), Hindustan Times ([15]), Times of India ([16]), NPR ([17]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([18]), Youlin ([19]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([29]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan per Mushy Yank. Meets WP:NLIST which says ... a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. and WP:NEXIST says Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article These memes are discussed as a set in Urdu references as well such as [30], [31], [32], [33] in reputed publication like BBC Urdu. 91.74.118.185 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To establish WP:N based on GNG, you've provided total 04 sources but all from the same publication, BBC Urdu and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. However, that's not my primary concern. What I'm worried about is whether we truly need a List of Internet memes in Pakistan as I don't believe it still passes the WP:N test. Generally, we don't create stand-alone lists like "List of X" unless X itself is a well-established encyclopedic topic with its own standalone articles. In this case, none of the memes or phenomena have their own standalone articles, which raises concerns about potentially violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a policy on avoiding indiscriminate collections of information. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue with WP:SYNTH is concerning. Lorstaking (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beachhead Solutions

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 30 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 Frequency (marketing)#Frequency capping. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Session capping

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

Article is dependent on a single reference that is browser session preservation and migration (BSPM) infrastructure, and does not have the term "session capping" anywhere in the document. Subsequent searches through Google and other reputable resources. The only loose references on session capping can be found at there places https://www.thedrum.com/industryinsights/2017/03/08/the-importance-getting-creative-when-optimising-your-programmatic-ads and https://forum.revive-adserver.com/topic/3018-an-ad-is-not-returned-on-first-pageview-when-banner-session-capping-is-enabled/, both of which are not reliable sources to reference. Additionally, there is a page Frequency (marketing) that encompasses this topic, whic I've already gone ahead to copy over. Erictleung (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this stub as suggested above, since the content has already been moved. -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate

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

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

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

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

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

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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! 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 June 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, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I couldn't find any major news articles or independent reviews about this. The information seems to come from the conference organizers themselves, and it's been flagged for a while for needing more reliable sources. Waqar💬 17:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Participants are basically evenly divided on the fate of this article based primarily on whether on not sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. It is not my role to assess the sourcing myself so I must close this as No consensus based on the arguments presented here. I do see that the article would benefit from a thorough editing to remove any bias present in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
    CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.
To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.
Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing++ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.
    The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.
    Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.
    Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.
    Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.
    Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.
    As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.
    The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Striking in favor of keeping. Will expand on why later; I don't have the time at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 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, CycloneYoris talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Through probably what is one of the oddest coincidences I have experienced on Wikipedia, I encountered the 30 N Gould Street, Sheridan, WY address independently when I noticed that it was related to lots of fraudulent and/or generally sketchy activity. This activity is covered in a variety of reliable sources, including The Sheridan Press (1, 2, 3), Reuters (via KSL, via The Malaysian Star), Overdrive, Esquire, The Washington Post, and the Gillette News-Record. I began to wonder to myself is it possible for an address to be notable but not the physical building itself? And I concluded that it was, given all of the coverage of it and the various scams that run through it. I then began to look back through Wikipedia to see if this was covered anywhere and, lo and behold, it was covered here. For reasons entirely unrelated to the acquisition of Epik, the address (and the registration agent operating out of it) had received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events.
    The text of the current article puts a lot of weight on the acquisition of Epik. That's probably a mistake in terms of article content focus (at least in terms of covering the great variety of items associated with that address), but I now realize that the sourcing is quite clear: this article can exist as a standalone, and should exist as a standalone, due to substantial non-overlap with Epik in terms of what our coverage ought be. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Other XfDs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1232541830"