Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

[edit]

Jonah Chapman

[edit]
Jonah Chapman (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)

Sources currently cited consist of IMDb and some YouTube channels published by the subject. Searching the name alone turns up unrelated individuals; with some other specifying material added, some promotional material from an agency turns up, but nothing which would indicate notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexender Melen

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

Non-notable businessperson without sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartSites, which was also created by the creator of this page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inde News

[edit]
Inde News (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 only sources are a press release and a random blog? 🄻🄰 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LoyaltyLion

[edit]
LoyaltyLion (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)

DELETE — Fails WP notability guidelines for organisations and companies WP:NCORP. The sources cited don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Most of the references are either self-published (the company's own website) or fail to offer in-depth analysis, consisting instead of brief mentions or promotional content, such as interviews and mentions in listicles. The tone of the article also leans towards promotional, especially in sections like "Platform Features" and "Partnerships and Integrations" WP:NPOV. There is a lack of information demonstrating the company's impact or actual significance beyond its promotional claims WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion303💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Al-Hammadi

[edit]
Faris Al-Hammadi (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 subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article fails to demonstrate any proof of notability and relies heavily on sources from social media platforms such as X, Instagram, and LinkedIn, which are generally not considered reliable. The few non-social media sources included are either trivial mentions or lack the depth and significance required to establish notability.

Based on my research, and after conducting a WP:BEFORE, I could not find independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. While the individual is a social media influencer with a large following, this alone does not suffice to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zeinali

[edit]
Patrick Zeinali (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)

DELETE — The article on Patrick Zeinali fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG for inclusion. The subject's coverage in reliable, secondary sources appears to be insufficiently substantial and independent of promotional or self-published content. While Zeinali has a notable presence on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, the majority of the references cited either derive from websites of questionable reliability or are focused on basic statistical data (e.g., subscriber count, views) and not substantive biographical or critical coverage.

The article primary relies on low-quality or non-independent sources with several of the sources cited, such as hypeauditor.com, socialblade.com, and networthspot.com, are not considered reliable for establishing notability. They primarily provide analytics and self-reported metrics rather than independent coverage.

The limited biographical mentions from "Creator Handbook" or "The Famous People" are either brief or fail to offer in-depth, independent analysis. No significant third-party journalistic or academic sources have been identified that discuss Zeinali's work or impact in a meaningful way.

Promotional tone and focus on social media metrics: The article leans heavily on discussing subscriber counts, followers, and collaborations with other creators, which aligns more closely with promotional content than encyclopedic coverage. Notability should stem from reliable, independent coverage of the subject's lasting impact, not their self-promotion or online popularity alone.

Given these factors, the article does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion and could be considered for deletion unless more reliable, independent, and substantial sources are provided.

Nyxion303 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im the creator of this article, honestly doesnt seem worth the effort, unless @Nyxion303 see it as notable. I wont see it as notable as well Codonified (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mukoya

[edit]
Dennis Mukoya (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)

Autobiography falling below notability guidelines. Failed attempt for a parliamentary seat does not confer notability Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExonHost

[edit]
ExonHost (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)

Sources are looking like PR peaces, which only promotes the subject, no independent reliable sources found with in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — It's already been said before but it remains an important point, the article simply fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There is a complete lack of significant, independent and reliable coverage from RS. The article relies on either primary sources (like its own site) or local Bangladeshi media outlets which come across as paid promotional PR pieces. I have not been able to find any RS either; for the company's current name or one of its three previous names. WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The references provided fail to demonstrate significant or independent reporting about the company. Without substantial, independent coverage from reputable secondary sources, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG.
The only possible notable thing about the subject seems to be that it is a ICANN accredited registrar. Though, while ICANN accreditation is a notable achievement within the web hosting industry, it does not, by itself, confer notability under WP standards. ICANN accredits hundreds of registrars. Inclusion on the ICANN registrar list does not inherently demonstrate encyclopedic value and so unless substantial independent and reliable sources with significant coverage is added, the article does not qualify for inclusion at this time and should therefore be deleted.
~~~~ Nyxion303💬 Talk 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.channelionline.com/দুই-তরুণের-এক্সনহোস্ট/
https://www.jagonews24.com/technology/news/185755
Those two articles from popular and verified Bangladeshi online news portal. I added much of them. Also I added WordCamp's links.
Don't they are enough for references? RanojitKumar (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the added sources, such as the article from Jagonews24 and the piece from Future Startup or even the one from Channeli Online, do not constitute reliable, independent coverage as required by WP:RS. These sources exhibit characteristics of puff pieces or press releases and fail to provide significant, in-depth analysis of the subject. The article in Jagonews24 seems like a press release. The one in Future Startup seems very promotional with grammatical errors and superficial coverage. It focuses on the founder’s ambitions rather than any substantial achievements or impact by the actual company.
Promotional or primary sources (like the company's own website or blogs related to WordPress sponsorships) cannot be used to establish notability under WP:IS. While we are on the topic of the sponsorships, the ExonHost article now prominently features ExonHost's sponsorship of WordCamp events, presenting it as evidence of notability. However, this inclusion is misleading for several reasons:
  • Sponsorship of WordCamp events does not confer significance or notability, as WordCamp allows any company to sponsor events by paying very small fees. For example, ExonHost's bronze sponsorship at WordCamp Kanpur 2017 required just $180 U.S. Dollars (source: WordCamp Kanpur Sponsorship Details);
  • Presenting these sponsorships as a key component of the company's achievements just inflates its importance and contributes to a promotional tone.
The article still leans heavily on primary sources, including the company's own website and affiliated blogs (like the WordCamp event pages). The article fails to provide significant independent coverage to counterbalance its reliance on promotional material.
That is only one part of the issue. An even bigger one is the fact that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as pointed out by myself and other contributors. Nyxion303💬 Talk 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. References such as Future Startup is an interview, Wordcamp is sponsored Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This company is based in Bangladesh, and its operations are centred there. Aren't articles from reputable Bangladeshi news portals sufficient to verify its notability or serve as independent sources? It's unlikely that international media like The New York Times or other global outlets would cover a company that primarily caters to the Bangladeshi market. If leading Bangladeshi news portals have provided coverage, why wouldn't that be enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? RanojitKumar (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article not having sufficient reliable sources. Seminita (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSites

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced only to press releases and "fastest growing companies" type lists. ~ A412 talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, SmartSites has been featured in reputable publications such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Inc. magazines, which provide independent coverage beyond trivial mentions. This establishes the company’s notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG). The article provides verifiable, well-sourced information, contributing to the encyclopedia's goal of documenting notable organizations.

Deletion would remove a valuable resource for users seeking information on a player in the digital marketing industry. Instead, any concerns about content quality or neutrality can be addressed through constructive edits. Hussainxyz (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hussainxyz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  • Delete, perhaps speedily as unambiguous WP:ADMASQ. This subject fails WP:NCORP. Virtually every source is a press release, and the few that aren't are WP:ORGTRIV. Being on the Inc. 5000 does not qualify a company as notable. Furthermore, I searched and there is no evidence for the page creator's assertion (or should I say ChatGPT's hallucination? GPTZero gives a 100% probability that the creator's !vote is WP:AIGENERATED) that there is independent coverage in Forbes or Entrepreneur. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a fundamental disagreement over the quality of the sources and whether they are SIGCOV or just press releases so a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: They are technically on Forbes Advisor, Inc., and Entrepreneur, but Forbes Advisor is not reliable per WP:RSP, and the Inc. and Entrepreneur do not contain significant coverage. Influencer Marketing Hub and DesignRush don't seem like reliable sources. Everything else is press releases and/or routine coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a directory page, not actual coverage in Entrepreneur magazine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article on SmartSites satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations, supported by significant independent coverage in reputable sources like Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur. These sources document the company's achievements, including its recognition on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private companies in America.

The content is backed by reliable references and is written in a neutral tone, providing encyclopedic value rather than promotional content. It offers important information about the company's role in the digital marketing industry, which is relevant to readers seeking insights into notable businesses in this field. I suggest keeping the article and addressing any specific concerns regarding formatting or sourcing to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. Hussainxyz (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should only make a single "Keep/delete" comment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please respond to the inquiry on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly for PR items, as are most of what we have now for sourcing. Forbes Advisor sites aren't RS, a company profile isn't helpful... We have nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (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)

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (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 am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

  • WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
  • There are no lasting effects
  • The geographical scope is limited to Duke
  • The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
  • There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
  • WP:NOTNEWS -

    Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."

  • In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

  • However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. I'll addI have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

[edit]
Apify (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)

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Licious (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reelmonk (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 to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian VTuber Awards

[edit]
Indonesian VTuber Awards (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)

Similar to the related page Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024, this event does not seem to meet the eligibility criteria of WP:GNG WP:EVENT. It also does not have a reliable source to verify the source of the news. Also, the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: w:id:WP:KONTENKREATOR). Ariandi Lie Let's talk 06:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of today this page notability might be contained within the limits os Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia. Although said page seems to have already been deleted Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No better sourcing found. Article creator apparently tried to circumvent the AfD process by moving the article back to draftspace (with a bogus edit summary, giving a rationale of reverting page move vandalism), then copypasting it back to mainspace without the AfD template (at which point the bot reapplied the tag). In the unlikely event that the article is not deleted, a history merge with the draft would seem to be in order, as the majority of the editing history is in the current draft version. --Finngall talk 22:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vabbing

[edit]
Vabbing (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)

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024

[edit]
Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024 (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 also nominated this article because This event does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nor does it have a reliable sources to verify. Also the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: WP:PEMBUATKONTEN). Ariandi Lie Let's talk 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

[edit]
Mwijaku (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)

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANUwrites 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 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 keep‎. It seems, given all of the sources shared in this discussion, that this subject has been adequately covered in reliable sources. User:Photos of Japan could you bring the sources you mention here into the article? I think it might discourage a quick repeat visit to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (trend)

[edit]
That Girl (trend) (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)

Contains little to no reliable sourcing and was created as part of a Wiki Education assignment. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “that girl” trend transitioned into the “vanilla girl aesthetic” with warmer scents and colors. Some still refer to the clean aesthetic as a “that girl” aesthetic but “that girl” aesthetic branched into “vanilla girl aesthetic”, “baddie aesthetic”, the “night luxe aesthetic”, etc.
Which would seem to imply the trend has largely evaporated into subsequent trends. However they later state:
Recently, this trend has gotten a lot of heat for being a part of the larger trend of toxic productivity and “hustle culture”
Which would seem to imply that people are still talking about it. The section links to the Aesthetics wiki (no way to know how recent) and 2 year old Topix (website) article which criticizes it while also stating that it seems here to stay.
One TikTok trend that seems to be here to stay? “That Girl.” While on the surface it’s all about being your best self mentally, physically, and professionally, therapists say this idea is actually toxic—here’s why.
A UVU Review article this year compares it to the It girl trend.
Gotham (magazine) did an interview with TikToker Kaeli Mae where she stated:
Definitely the clean girl aesthetic. Even back when I started four years ago, it was referred to as like “That Girl” and they still refer to it as that, but I feel like the trend of “That Girl” or “Clean Girl” is always there. I think it will always be there. It just maybe has different names at some points, but it all revolves around the same aesthetic.
InStyle had an article this year about "clean girl" aesthetic which supports an unclear relationship to "that girl".
Maximal in regards to their career goals ("That Girl"), the clean girl is minimalist when it comes to beauty and fashion
Elle (India) has an article from this year that also ambiguously equivocates "clean girl" with "that girl".
The reason I support keeping the article is because it is part of a significant and enduring women's self-improvement and aesthetics trend that is ambiguously defined leaving no clear merge target. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 24 December 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. I see a clear consensus for deletion here, which I'm honestly baffled by; it certainly seems like A Thing to me. If any editors think they could reconceptualize this in a way that would pass an AfD discussion and would like to crib from this article to do so, I'm happy to restore it to userspace for you. asilvering (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic

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

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating my !vote. The two source analysis tables below by @WomenArtistUpdates are very convincing. The term is WP:SYNTH, and the article is WP:OR; the subject does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. At this point it is simply a figure of speech, but not a wiki-notable one per the source analyses. I do not think that what is being argued in the k**p !votes has the exactitude necessary to prove that this concept is a "thing" represented clearly and significantly in reliable sources outside of searching for the two terms being used in the same sentence or paragraph. If one googles "orange" and "avocado" together in a search, that does not mean that "orange avocados" exist, nor that "avocado flavored oranges" exist. (The same could be said for "internet orange avocados".) The article should not be retained in the encyclopedia and should be deleted at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.
Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.
On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.
Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the three sources cited by the last user, none of them use the term "internet aesthetic" (one says "internet aestheticization", though). To me this argues that the label is an attempt to tie together different things in an WP:OR way. I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article uses both "online aesthetic" and "digital aesthetic". In reality these are just referred to as "aesthetic" most of the time, but when trying to discuss them and clearly differentiate them from regular aesthetics people sometimes put an adjective in front of them. This article could be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem with pretty much all sources attempted. They talk about aesthetics that happen to be common/connected to the internet, but that doesn't make them an "internet aesthetic". Just because people find examples of cottagecore online doesn't make it an "internet aesthetic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem with the sources though, but a problem with the article. The article should just refer to these as "aesthetics" and probably be named something along the lines of Aesthetics (parenthetical differentiator), but there's no clear word to put in the parentheses to differentiate it from the Aesthetics article. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been two recurring concerns brought up here: that the grouping of aesthetics here is WP:OR, and that internet aesthetics lack WP:SIGCOV. Discussion has been fragmented, so I will comprehensively address both here.
WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns
There are two practical methods for determining what counts as an internet aesthetic for the purpose of being incorporated into this article. For the first, any entry in the Aesthetics Wiki can simply be considered an aesthetic. The Aesthetics Wiki has wide currency as the space on the internet where aesthetics are being documented and catalogued, with multiple rs's that go in depth on internet aesthetics primarily referencing the wiki ([10][11][12]).
For the second practical method, anything containing a common aesthetic suffix or which commonly has "aesthetic" appended to the end of it can be considered an internet aesthetic for this article. For instance, "Clean Girl" is often referred to as "Clean Girl aesthetic" ([13] [14]). Common aesthetic suffixes include “core” (e.g., cottagecore), “goth” (e.g., cybergoth), “kei” (e.g., cult party kei), “punk” (e.g., sea punk), “wave” (e.g., sovietwave), and “academia” (e.g., dark academia)
WP:SIGCOV
Just glancing at the references section and looking at their titles shows that "aesthetics" in the internet sense is in widespread use by reliable sources. However, the main concern people have is whether there is significant coverage to establish them as a concept. This is unequivocally the case with multiple sources delving in depth into aesthetics:
With these (and others) there is enough to write fairly sizeable history, definition, and criticism sections. A concern that has been raised is that these do not all use the term "internet aesthetic". Many terms are used: "online aesthetic", "digital aesthetic", "micro aesthetic", etc. Most commonly they are simply called "aesthetics" (it is tangential to the discussion of notability, but I believe this article should simply refer to them as "aesthetics" and be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet)). Regardless of what they call it, it is clear they are all referring to the same concept, and are referring to things which would be considered internet aesthetics by the two practical methods described earlier.
Issues concerning the article lacking a cited definition, or other content issues have been raised, but should be addressed through editing. The lack of a cited definition is not due to lack of sources trying to define aesthetics, but due to the difficulty in defining them. I am working on a summary of how different sources have discussed its usage, but it is a linguistically complex issue and will likely take a few days. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like an article on Aesthetics Wiki (now a redirect) would/could use the sources above more accurately. It is a tangible thing that exists, controversies and all. I don't think a case has been made that Internet aesthetic exists. Perhaps reversing the redirect would allow for a wiki worthy article that could touch on the topics listed now that fall into OR. I suggest redirect and rewrite as an alternative to deletion, unless a [fandom site] is never considered notable, in which case I stick with removing the article.I do not find any reliable sourcing for this article as it stands and don't see how it can be edited into anything wiki-worthy.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetics exist and are straightforward to identify as such even if they are hard to define. It doesn't help that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." To simply borrow the description from the wiki:
Aesthetics have now come to mean a collection of images, colors, objects, music, and writings that creates a specific emotion, purpose, and community.
Aesthetics largely emerged from the categorization of media across social aggregation websites (Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc.). Broadly speaking "aesthetics" is used to variably to describe collections of media that exemplify something akin to a style or trend, the lifestyles and communities based around them, and the individuals that identify with them. Various sources discuss, however, how they differ from things like styles (not explicitly defined, instead typically illustrated by collections of exemplifying materials), and subcultures (communities around aesthetics don't require physical participation, are more ephemeral, tend to lack political stances/morals/etc.) It is very difficult trying to summarize the various sources' descriptions of how "aesthetics" is used and what "aesthetics" are, while avoiding WP:SYNTH, due to the variety of closely related meanings the word has and the lack of a linguistics source comprehensively and explicitly detailing how the word is being used. However, all of the sources are in common agreement as to what things are aesthetics (e.g. cottagecore, Y2K aesthetic, Dark academia, etc.), these all either end in common aesthetics suffixes or are referred to as "X aesthetic" widely across social media, and are documented and appear in the Aesthetics wiki. Some sources that discuss them include:
The aesthetics of the self: The meaning-making of Internet aesthetics article in First Monday (journal) exploring and characterizing the nature of internet aesthetics:
In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics, labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities by Internet users, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet.
Do I have an Aesthetic? article on aesthetics in Vogue (magazine)
What I’m asking in these moments is, in internet parlance, what is my aesthetic? ... I’m suddenly aware of just how many hyper-specific aesthetics with handy, catchy names already exist on the internet. Overtime, “aesthetic” has evolved from an academic word and something utilized by artists and auteurs to something to categorize our own identities by. It can mean both personal style and a vague stand-in for beauty ... Pinterest says that there has been a growing interest in aesthetics since 2018, with a “large spike of 60% in searches for simply “core aesthetic” as Pinners discovered different types of aesthetics to shape their identity,” ... On Tumblr, users would build their blogs around a particular theme, whether it was cottagecore or a collage of images representing a character from a TV show. These niches have blossomed and expanded. One Tumblr user, who goes by Fairypage, took notice of just how many aesthetics were being defined online, and decided to make the AestheticsWiki ... has her own definition for what an aesthetic is: The stylistically consistent multimodal manifestation of an imagined lifeworld. In other words, “Something is an aesthetic if you can look at an image [or song] and say ‘yeah that belongs there.’”
All style, no substance: the problem of aesthetics in 2023 article on aesthetics in Prospect (magazine)
Aesthetics is no longer an investigative term for the science of beauty and taste, but an umbrella term for online subcultures, a byword for “vibe”. And you can do more than just admire an aesthetic: it’s now something you can be too, if you wear the right clothes and listen to the right playlist. As the wiki itself puts it, “There is currently no dictionary definition that captures the complexity of this phenomenon, which arose in the Internet youth.”
Cottagecore Was Just the Beginning article on aesthetics in The Atlantic:
At this point, the word aesthetic is totally divorced from its academic origins. While Tumblr users mainstreamed it years ago, many teenagers use aesthetic as an all-purpose adjective—“that’s so aesthetic” as a shorthand for “that’s so aesthetically pleasing to me.” But in broader internet parlance, it now means a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”
Decoding Internet Fashion: 20 Aesthetics for 2023 marketing analysis of internet aesthetics by Ipsos
To understand each aesthetic, we analyzed 8 million posts – including text, images, and videos – related to Angelcore, Art Hoe, Baddie, Clean Girl, Coastal Grandmother, Cottagecore, Dark Academia, E-girl, Emo, Fairycore, Grunge, Indie, Kawaii, Kidcore, Light Academia, Old Money, Skater Girl, Soft Girl, Vintage, and Y2K. Hashtags for each of the aesthetics have generated billions of views and interactions on TikTok, displaying content from influencers, brands, and “normal” platform users. While TikTok generates the most engagement on aesthetics-related posts, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are also go-to sites to share and discuss content.'
Style at Home: Internet aesthetics: cottagecore vs. cluttercore article in The Detroit News:
The aesthetics tend to be more than just a design choice, sometimes also embodying a fantastical-seeming lifestyle.
Ranking 2023's Internet Aesthetic Trends article in Paper (magazine)
More sources exist, but I believe these are sufficient to show that internet aesthetics (e.g. Corecore, Y2K aesthetic, Light academia, Cottagecore) exist, and have recieved WP:SIGCOV, even if they are conceptually difficult to describe. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really seems like you're conflating the existence and study of aesthetics that happen to be online to the existence of an "internet aesthetic". This is the core OR/SYNTH issue at hand. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paper details what internet aesthetics are. Just glancing through the abstract and introduction establishes their existence. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paper referred to above states in the Abstract In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet (mainly onInstagram, Tumblr and Pinterest). In contrast to established notions, such as genre, style or subculture, Internet aesthetics are characterized by few conventions, but seem fundamentally open for individual interpretations. (emphasis mine). It fails to define Internet aesthetics in any useful way, in fact it takes a step back from supplying any useful information by stating that it is whatever one wants it to be. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "so-called" is often used in an ironic sense to cast doubt on something (i.e. implying that something is merely "called" something but isn't actually that thing), but this paper is using "so-called" in the straightforward sense: "used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified".
The paper spends half of its text describing and characterizing internet aesthetics, and arguing that they aren't "styles", "genres", "subcultures", etc. It isn't saying internet aesthetics are whatever you want them to be when it says that they are "fundamentally open for individual interpretations". Rather it is saying that what defines an internet aesthetic is the mood that the individual feels, and that different media affect individuals differently, allowing individuals to select media which set the mood for them.
For instance, a beanie baby might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia in someone here, while for an old Japanese man Daruma otoshi might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia. Internet aesthetics are characterized by collections of exemplifying media (songs, images, etc.) that set a certain mood, but are fundamentally open to individuals to include or exclude things that don't evoke that mood for them, rather than being prescriptive (like a style or genre) and being defined based off external, sensorial qualities. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a source assessment table for 20 pf the citations without finding significant coverage of the term Internet aesthetic. I will do the other 21 when time permits. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vogue.com/article/do-i-have-an-aesthetic Yes Yes No article discusses aesthetics and does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/aesthetics.htm Yes Yes No definition of aesthetics - does not mention "intent aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/lifestyle/what-is-an-art-hoe-aesthetic-5555291 Vancouver Is Awesome No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/56630/1/young-women-on-the-internet-love-lolita-nymphet-tumblr-coquette-aesthetic No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://screenshot-media.com/culture/internet-culture/weirdcore-explained/ No article about Weirdcore ✘ No
https://www.voguebusiness.com/story/fashion/set-follow-or-skip-how-brands-should-navigate-micro-trends Yes Yes No article about micro-trends does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/core Yes Yes No passing use of the term to help define micro-trend ✘ No
https://time.com/6248637/corecore-tiktok-aesthetic/ Yes Yes No article about Corecore does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/19/year-2000-y2k-millennium-design-aesthetic Yes Yes No article about Y2K aesthetic does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.nylon.com/fashion/y2k-cybercore-aesthetic-fashion-trend No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-year-in-aesthetics-from-dark-academia-to-mcbling/ Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vogue.com/article/y2k-fashion Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/58103/1/what-is-frutiger-aero-aesthetic-tiktok-msn-messenger-windows-vista-noughties No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.reeditionmagazine.com/to-the-minute/unveiling-the-mystery-exploring-the-fascinating-world-of-frutiger-aero No article about frutiger aero, does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/frutiger-aero-aesthetic-resurgance No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/style/dark-academia-tiktok.html Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetics" at all ✘ No
https://www.vinsider.ca/voices/the-rise-of-dark-academia/ No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.wallflowerjournal.com/lifestyle/dark-academia-light-academia-amp-cottagecore-breaking-down-3-popular-internet-aesthetics No Dark Academia, Light Academia, & Cottagecore: Breaking Down 3 Popular Internet Aesthetics - uses the term in the headline, but nowhere in the article ✘ No
https://www.theotheraesthetic.com/blog/types-of-academia-aesthetics-which-one-are-you/ No article on Academia Aesthetics. does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ 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}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://thepearlexpert.com/light-academia/ No No ~ uses the term internet aesthetic without any definition. This seems to be a very fashion specific article ✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/lifestyle/what-is-the-light-academia-aesthetic-vancouver-5516856 No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8/3/21349640/cottagecore-taylor-swift-folklore-lesbian-clothes-animal-crossing Yes Yes No mentions internet aesthetics in the author biography, but nowhere esle in this article on cottagecore ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/why-is-cottagecore-booming-because-being-outside-is-now-the-ultimate-taboo Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/vsco-girl-purchases-boosted-brands-vsco-app-2019-8#the-vsco-girl-summer-is-over-but-sales-are-not-2 No article about VSCO girl - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/09/vsco-girls-explained-by-teens.html Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/vsco-girl-starter-pack Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.elle.com/fashion/trend-reports/a28709397/vsco-girls-what-to-know/ Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/20/why-vsco-girls-are-going-on-strike-for-the-climate/ No does not mention internet aesthetics at all ✘ No
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39359-4_7 paywall ? Unknown
https://www.vogue.com/article/what-is-mcbling Yes Yes No What Is McBling and How Is it Different From Y2K? - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/fashion/news/g5694/vintage-christina-aguilera/ Yes Yes No 50 Christina Aguilera Fashion Moments You Forgot You Were Obsessed With - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/e-girls-definition-tiktok-e-boys-anti-influencer-teen-gamers-2019-9 No Everything you need to know about e-girls and e-boys, teen gamers who have emerged as the antithesis of Instagram influencers - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://heatworld.com/shopping/fashion/e-girl-style-guide/ No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://manofmany.com/fashion/mens-fashion-trends/what-is-an-eboy-the-true-eboy-style-explained No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://happymag.tv/indie-aesthetic/ No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/what-is-the-clean-girl-aesthetic-how-to-achieve-the-look/ Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2022/07/11048021/unbothered-clean-girl-makeup-black-women No No No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.instyle.com/clean-girl-aesthetic-fashion-trend-5496498 Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/birkenstock-arizona-sandals Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ 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}}.
Thank for you the table, however, it is important to note that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." (I understand that wikis are generally not reliable, but given this particular wiki is the main place internet aesthetics are documented and categorized (and is referenced in reliable sources) then I feel its page on internet aesthetics helps support basic statements about how the term itself is used.) The problem that we have is this article isn't about the term "internet aesthetic", but the concept, and the concept is widely referred to just as "aesthetics".
Internet aesthetics are just "aesthetics" (in the expanded internet usage of the word) that developed and occur primarily online.
To determine if sources are referring to internet aesthetics you need to consider the context of the article.
As an example, the Vogue article describes both internet and non-internet aesthetics:
Some are old school—Art Deco is listed along with preppy—others are products of the internet, like e-girls and bubblegum bitch
The Vogue article is discussing "aesthetics" (in the internet sense of the word) broadly, so while it could be used to establish the notability of "aesthetics", it wouldn't establish notability of any subsets of "aesthetics" such as "internet aesthetics".
As far as reliable sources that explicitly use the term "internet aesthetics" and give them significant coverage, here are three academic papers:
I believe those three papers, by themselves, are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The third article also includes the statement
In the past few years, researchers from English, History, Comparative Literature, Sociology, and Culture Studies, among others, have begun interrogating internet aesthetics as cultural phenomena that implicate their own disciplines, as well as the structures of academia writ large.
And appears as though it may be a source for additional articles discussing internet aesthetics. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nylon (magazine) has a series of articles called "Core Club" devoted to covering internet aesthetics:
Whether it's a fashion trend on TikTok or a certain style taking over Instagram, internet aesthetics are always changing online. Our series 'Core Club breaks down the looks that you're starting to see a lot on social media and highlights the people and brands channeling it best.
Extended content
she doubled down on what’s known online as “princesscore,” a style that falls under the “royalcore” internet aesthetic.
...its similarities with cottagecore and how that particular internet aesthetic
No matter what you call it, this internet aesthetic is for those who crave opulence and romance in their everyday life.
Enter: fairycore, the latest internet aesthetic taking the fashion spotlight in all its glittery, warm glory.
In the case of dark academia, its inevitable internet aesthetic opposite is slowly on the rise
Meanwhile, YouTuber Liz Ruth, who did a deep dive on the differences between the two internet aesthetics in a video that she posted in October
...one internet aesthetic is keeping the holiday's spirit in style all year long. Lovecore, which has developed a cult following...
a new internet aesthetic is tapping into childhood nostalgia: kidcore.
Photos of Japan (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Photos of Japan, you've done a great deal of work in finding what I would think are enough sources to save the page or at least provide a "no consensus" option. Since some of your newest finds are tucked away in an "Extended comment" box, hopefully editors will open it before commenting. This has been a long AfD! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of the synthesis issue as discussed above: it is correct there are aesthetic trends, that they are localised on Internet communities and critically discussed, but the category as a whole is indefinite, lacks rigorous sourcing based on above source checks, and so the exercise of connecting the dots is largely one undertaken by the editor without any agreed typology. Without a scope it becomes confusing whether the aesthetics of interest refer to those created within and using the medium or popularised and disseminated on subcultures on the Internet. Lots to salvage here on individual trends though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the "category as a whole is indefinite" which would essentially make this a broad-concept article (WP:BROAD):
A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts.
Other example articles are indefinite as well, such as Central Asia and Northern Europe, which similarly have issues with WP:SYNTH. The problem with SYNTH in broad concept articles has been discussed on the talk page, however, SYNTH is ultimately a content issue and not a notability issue unless per WP:SIGCOV the sourcing requires OR in order to write an article.
But an article's subject being broad, vague or abstract does not necessitate that OR is needed to write it, otherwise WP:BROAD wouldn't exist.
In terms of this particular article I believe one potential way the SYNTH issues could be addressed could be:
The definition section limits itself to articles that explicitly discuss "internet aesthetics" (as I've rewritten it to do).
Examples of internet aesthetics are limited to those which have been explicitly described as "internet aesthetics" (there are already several examples that are explicitly described as such)
The history section can include more general sources on the term "aesthetic" and how its usage has evolved in internet parlance.
I believe this is one way that the article could be written to avoid SYNTH while still having enough content to write an article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here due to servicing the category "Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts" and found this. Had a look it. If this was a true social movement it would be academically rigourous, studied and would be referenced as such, but it isn't, with plenty of academic references available to support it. Its quite hard to find anything on gbooks except self-published books. Instead its been cobbled together from a set of independent subjects and referenced as such to popular internet sites which essentially makes it WP:OR published by the author. It was moved from draft by him without being referenced. If it had been, it wouldn't made it out. scope_creepTalk 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have replaced the LLM generated definition section with a new section that cites three academic articles. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369252566_The_aesthetics_of_the_self_The_meaning-making_of_Internet_aesthetics Yes Yes Yes entire study on internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
https://academic.oup.com/crj/article/16/4/419/7710018?login=false Yes Yes Yes contains an entire section discussing internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
https://www.nylon.com/core-club Yes Yes Yes is an entire series of articles on internet aesthetics per its description, 7 of the articles explicitly use the term "internet aesthetic" to describe the subject of the article ✔ Yes
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2020/09/03/autonomy-and-internet-aesthetics/ Yes Yes Is an academic blog devoted to the philosophy of aesthetics. The author is an associate professor of philosophy with an interest in aesthetics. The blog's editor in chief is an associate professor of philosophy, and the two assistant editors are both professors of philosophy, all of whom specialize in aesthetics Yes is an entire article devoted to internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2024/03/07/are-the-kids-alright-on-cottagecore-quiet-luxury-clean-girl-and-other-internet-aesthetics/ Yes Yes Same blog as before. This article was also co-edited by Aaron Meskin, Head of Philosophy at the University of Georgia, and former Professor of Philosophical Aesthetics at the University of Leeds Yes collection of writings on internet aesthetics written by students (BA, MA, and PhD) of philosophy and two assistant professors of philosophy ✔ Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/magazine/aesthetics-tiktok-teens.html Yes Yes Yes entire article devoted to how subcultures are being replaced by aesthetics. Previously mentioned Aaron Meskin in the previous source clarifies that the author in this article is referring to internet aesthetics. ✔ Yes
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}}.
Extended content


You have cobbled a series of reference here don't add up to squat as there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together - its all disparate popular culure subjects. It is essentially popular culture junk reporting that has been attached to the term and has no meaning. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together", except the multiple academic papers discussing the underlying knowledge linking them together, presented in the source assessment table right above this. The point of this list is to provide a list of sources that refer to specific things as an "internet aesthetic" to support them being mentioned in the article. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:35, 31 December 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

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1266511112"