Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

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

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] Black-listed: ^[13] ^[14]. Press release: ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[19]. Wordpress: ^[20]. Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): ^[21] ^[22].

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: ^[23] ^[24] ^[25] ^[26]. Written with similar promotional content: ^[27] ^[28].

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article trimmed to remove obvious promotional sentences. I agree with the nominator when he says that the article was advertisement. I also added back the criticism section removed by an IP 4 years ago and expanded on it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Styyx in the DRV. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: The page is really good and meets the required Wikipedia policy for a standard page Francisca po (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (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 speedy keep. The nomination is so erroneous (literally showing GNG) that it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and could just as well be also speedily kept by WP:CSK no. 3 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

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

I don’t understand why citations 7 through 11 are even being referenced or what their relevance to the subject of the article is as they mostly do not mention any keywords such as “skeptic,” “podcast,” or “Novella.” Novella is mentioned in passing a couple times but never in connection to the podcast. As far as I can tell the two Skeptical Inquirer articles are the only sources that aren’t self-published or from a blog, social media, or other unreliable source. However, these two articles are written by journalists (Rob Palmer and Susan Gerbic) who aren’t particularly well known from a magazine that isn’t particularly well known. It's also worth noting that these authors are part of "the Guerilla Skeptcism on Wikipedia team" according to the profile information at the bottom of both articles. These sources are also in interview format so almost all the information is directly coming from the hosts of the show as opposed to an independent or secondary source. I searched around for some sources that might indicate some level of notability, but the only sources I could find that had more than a trivial mention include book riot, The Hindu Buisness Line, Business Insider, and Thrillist. These sources only dedicate a short paragraph to the podcast and I’m unconvinced that the topic meets WP:GNG. The podcast won some People’s Choice Awards, which might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT but the guideline says that an article “may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria” not that it’s guaranteed. Also, the People’s Choice Award is arguably not a “well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization”. If someone would like to add the sources I found to the hosts’ articles that might be worth the time, but I don’t think anything from this article is salvageable so I’m not sure that would even count as a merge.If the podcast is determined to be notable enough for a stand alone article I still think the majority of the article needs to be rewritten and given the available sources wouldn’t be much more than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Skeptical Inquirer has been in publication for over forty years, has an international distribution and is widely regarded as one of the foundational publications of modern skepticism. To describe it as "not particularly well known" as part of an AfD argument strains credulity. The further claim that those two cites are the only independent ones is just blatantly false: I count 12 independent sources cited in the references.

The complaint about cites 7-11 above would have taken a single mouse click to verify: they're about one of the podcast's hosts, and are properly used to support content about that host. The claim that they don't contain the word "Novella" is categorically false. They're all about Steven Novella.

The complaints here about the Podcast Awards are even more strange. We have an article about them which has survived an AfD and is well-sourced, yet they're somehow not notable? That's an oxymoron.

The fact that even the nominator managed to find 4 references which aren't currently used in the article demonstrates rather clearly that there's no lack of sourcing (and thus, no lack of notability) here.

Finally, I'd like to draw any other editor's attention to the last AfD and the result: Unanimous "Keep". Have the sources which supported it then since ceased to exist? No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This podcast handily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Here are several secondary WP:RSes which cover the subject in moderate-to-heavy depth at a national level.^[1]^[2]^[3] But here are also some local sources with even more significant coverage of the subject.^[4]^[5] It's also featured often as a "top listen" in features about science podcasts.^[6]^[7] Their book has been reviewed in national outlets.^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] As a news/entertainment organization, they also pass WP:AUD with a whopping 132 million+ downloads and 100,000+ weekly listeners.^[12]^[3] So, in my interpretation of the relevant WP:PAG, it's an obvious keep.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remarkably, it's on several current Top Ten Science Podcasts lists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shibboleth. "A magazine that isn’t particularly well known"? Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the AfD nomination lists multiple independent sources, one has to ask why we are even bothering with this. I mean literally one could vote "Keep per nom" without any trace of irony. This should be SNOW withdrawn by the nominator, followed by a light trouting. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hyperion35 for introducing me to the term trouting. This is precisely what I needed in my life this fine Thursday.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it refers to WP:TROUT; the act of smacking someone in the face with a dead fish.

Which, now that I think about it, is far worse than what's described in your link.

And it gets better! You can also get whaled. Which is, of course, far better than getting whaled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow yeah I would much rather get Urban Dictionary trouted than smacked in the face with a dead fish. The former is is a child's game, the latter is a recipe for giving somebody FACE GANGRENE.^[13]^[14] /s --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stealing FACE GANGRENE for the name of my new Grindcore band. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Sixty Billion Stars. And No Aliens? What Now?". Mind Matters. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ Dinerstein, MBA, Chuck (2018-10-02). "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - a Useful Toolkit". American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ ^a ^b Storr, Will. "'Ebola is man-made', and other crazy conspiracy theories". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ Pomeroy, Ross. "Scientist Goes on Epic Rant About 60 Minutes' Gullible Story on UFOs". Fairfield Sun Times. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ Marielle, Alaikia (2019-03-22). "Binge Bytes: 'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe'". The Daily Utah Chronicle. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ McFadden, Christopher (2019-10-06). "7+ of the Best Science Podcasts for 2019". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ "12 Best Space and Science Podcasts to Listen to Right Now". The Manual. 2021-04-05. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ "Nonfiction Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake by Steven Novella, with Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria, Jay Novella, and Evan Bernstein. Grand Central, $30 (496p) ISBN 978-1-5387-6051-2". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ "THE SKEPTICS' GUIDE TO THE UNIVERSE Kirkus Reviews". Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ Editors, The (2019-01-03). "'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe' by Steven Novella - RealClearBooks". www.realclearbooks.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
^ Dombrowski, Eileen (2018-11-19). "TOK Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake". Oxford Education Blog. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ "About The Skeptics Guide to the Universe". 2018-12-04. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
^ Oh, Woo Taek; Jun, Jin Woo; Giri, Sib Sankar; Yun, Saekil; Kim, Hyoun Joong; Kim, Sang Guen; Kim, Sang Wha; Han, Se Jin; Kwon, Jun; Park, Se Chang (September 2019). "Staphylococcus xylosus Infection in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) As a Primary Pathogenic Cause of Eye Protrusion and Mortality". Microorganisms. 7 (9): 330. doi:10.3390/microorganisms7090330. PMC 6780347. PMID 31500280.
^ Gornatti-Churria, Carlos D.; Crispo, Manuela; Shivaprasad, H. L.; Uzal, Francisco A. (March 2018). "Gangrenous dermatitis in chickens and turkeys". Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation : Official Publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc. 30 (2): 188–196. doi:10.1177/1040638717742435. ISSN 1040-6387. PMC 6505868. PMID 29145799.

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. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ares Galaxy

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. None of the four sources provided in the article and on the talk page are both reliable and in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (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 Lucy Porter#Career as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many Questions

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, fails WP:GNG and is insignificant. Can't find more good sources and the wiki page only contains 1. Tautomers (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lucy Porter. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KineticGlue

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

A run-of-the-mill enterprise software vendor that fails NCORP. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to acquisition reports, interviews and brief mentions in listicles. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Mostly interview sorts of coverage with no independent perspective of a journalist on the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (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. Sandstein 06:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the current sources are reliable secondary sources and finding reliable secondary sources is not possible using Google News as far as I can tell. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Won a couple of awards and some minor coverage, but doesn't seem significant as per WP:GNG. In any case, if kept, the article needs a significant trim of content. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively overblown article for a subject that appears to fail WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikono (art democratization)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ikono (art democratization)

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

Nonnotable business. No improvement since being tagged. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the parallel AfDs on the related channels: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoMenasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. See my extended comments regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ: The Musical

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a viral video, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for web content. The notability claim on offer here is that the video exists, "referenced" to its own presence on YouTube -- but simply existing isn't the notability test per se, providing circular verification of its existence by citing it to itself doesn't help, and otherwise this just linkfarms a long, contextless stack of glancing namechecks of its existence in newspaper or magazine articles that aren't about it, which does not help to build notability at all. We've all seen it, certainly, but that doesn't make it notable in the absence of any reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture as a flash-in-the-pan blasphemy about which one can't say much more than it happened, people were either enraged or amused, it got News of the Weird-style coverage, and then nobody cared until the next time it came up for deletion on WP. Well=known cover, yes, which is why I propose the merge, but I don't see how it's justified as a stand-alone article. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture per above. The AfDs from 2009 and 2010 seem to argue "cultural impact" and "lasting significance" but this viral video has been basically forgotten 11 years later [1]. Evaluation of the sources doesn't help its case either.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Jesus Christ: The Musical at IMDb		WP:IMDB		✘ No
Stanford Law School - The Center for Internet and Society - "Jesus Christ: The Musical" Gets New Life		WP:BLOGS	Very short article about copyright infringement	✘ No
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/lessig-obama-and-the-fabulous-singing-jesus.ars			~ Article isn't focused on the video, but it's an important part of it	~ Partial
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/TECH-CHRONICLES-A-daily-dose-of-postings-from-2602914.php			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/youve-got-to-be-joking-20080628-gdsk05.html			Passing mention as an example	✘ No
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-funny-thing-about-taboos-20080711-3do1.html?page=5	Literally the same article as above with a different name		Passing mention as an example	✘ No
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10040628			~ Article isn't focused on the video, but it's an important part of it	~ Partial
http://media.www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/storage/paper673/news/2007/01/24/Diversions/Cheap.Date-2670273.shtml	Dead link			? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall the majority of the sources are passing mentions, and at best, just use the video as an example of the controversy around fair use law. That's not enough to justify a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEMZ

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; scanning the sources shows only a couple of articles from the same publisher that provides significant coverage. Multiple links listed are to YouTube, and a simple web search fails to garner significant media attention. From my understanding, multiple sources are needed to satisfy notability. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources aren't necessarily required in order for a topic to be notable, it is merely a good indicator that a topic is notable. I'm leaning towards a weak keep under the assumption that Motherboard is a satisfactory source. Mlb96 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although many of the sources already cited in the article aren't massively reliable, the two Motherboard articles and this Vice article might be enough to keep it. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:38, 4 July 2021 (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. With the sources indicated in this discussion, it is encouraged that the sourcing in the article should be improved if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shein (company)

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

Advertisement of a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A paywalled Financial Times article ("Shein leaves Boohoo and Zara on fast fashion's shelf") appears to have potential towards demonstrating notability if anyone with access can confirm? AllyD (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rai, Saritha; Chan, Vinicy; Cao, Dong; Fioretti, Julia; Hipwell, Deirde; Townsend, Matthew; Chen, Lulu Yilun; Horta E Costa, Sofia (2021-06-14). "How Trump's Trade War Built Shein, China's First Global Fashion Giant". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "On May 17, Shein — pronounced “she-in” — ended Amazon’s 152-day streak as the most downloaded shopping app in the U.S., a remarkable feat for any seven-year-old clothing brand, let alone one most Americans over 30 still haven’t heard of. The kids, though, are all over it. As with so many online phenomena, Gen Z and young millennial shoppers have propelled Shein’s rise, in thrall to the company’s never-ending, always-changing catalog of clothes at prices that stretch even the most meager allowance."
2. Fressynet, Ines (2011-06-04). "Welcome to the dark side: Why Shein might be the biggest rip-off since fast fashion was born". Euronews. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes, "Overall, Shein (previously She Inside) is a complete mystery. No phone number, no email and certainly no press contact was to be found online. Even the name of its founder remains a total enigma, as El Mundo reports." The article further notes: "Besides the seemingly low quality and virgin oil-based textiles used - everything is made with polyester, nylon and other synthetic fabrics - the main question is, who is making Shein clothing and how much are they paid? ... The fact that the Chinese brand also copies independent designers is also allegedly public knowledge, Jezebel reports."
3. Shen, Xinmei (2020-07-01). "Chinese fast fashion shopping app Shein is loved by Gen Z but banned in India". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Shein (pronounced she-in) doesn’t target its home country, China, and it doesn’t sell well there. Instead, the fast fashion online retailer primarily targets overseas markets, helping it pull in billions of dollars in sales last year."
4. Lee, Dave (2021-06-14). "Chinese ecommerce site Shein hit with trademark disputes". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  The article notes: "Popular Chinese ecommerce platform Shein, whose big data-driven designs have propelled it to the top of app download charts, is facing complaints from apparel brands that claim it has infringed their intellectual property. ... In May of this year, according to data from AppAnnie, the company reached the top of the app download charts for shopping on both Apple and Google’s stores, while it was valued at $15bn in its most recent known funding round in August 2020, according to data from PitchBook. ... Shein’s popularity stems from its use of data analytics to quickly turn emerging fashion trends into extremely cheap products, sometimes in just a matter of days — a feat that has drawn concern over labour standards, though the company insists it keeps a close watch on its suppliers."
5. Cardinale, Juliette (2019-09-03). "Shein S'Installe Trois Jours À Paris" [Shein sets up three days in Paris]. Paulette (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
6. Darnige, Charlotte (2019-08-27). "La marque Shein ouvre un pop-up store !" [The Shein brand opens a pop-up store!]. Cosmopolitan (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
7. Rosa del Pino, Andrea M. (2019-10-08). "El misterio detrás del millonario fundador de SheIn, el gigante de la ropa 'low cost' en Internet" [The mystery behind the millionaire founder of SheIn, the giant of 'low cost' clothing on the Internet]. El Mundo (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
8. Brooks, Ryan (2021-05-22). "Online Store Shein Apologized For Selling A Phone Case Depicting A Handcuffed Black Person Outlined In Chalk". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
9. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-09). "Online Retailer Shein Was Selling A "Metal Swastika Pendant" Necklace Until People Noticed". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
10. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-06). "The Clothing Company Shein Has Apologized For Selling Muslim Prayer Mats As Decorative Rugs After A Post Went Viral". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
11. Dahir, Ikran (2020-07-10). "Online Retailer Shein Apologized Twice This Week. Now It's Being Called Out Again For Selling A Necklace That Says "Allah."". Buzzfeed News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shein to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view the Wikipedia article to be be an advertisement. The Wikipedia article discusses how Shein "was sued by Levi Strauss & Co. for copying a trademarked jean stitching". The article further notes, "In June 2020, it was banned in India citing privacy concerns. In July 2020, a necklace with a swastika was pulled from sale (the brand clarified that it was a Buddhist swastika, not a Nazi swastika)."
This is negative coverage about Shein.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Devonian Wombat (talk · contribs), who moved this article to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I concur with Cunard, this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH as evidenced by the negative coverage cited in the article, as well as the coverage cited above. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above Coldbolt (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough balance, as per Cunard, to show it's not an advertisement. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Additional sources:

Che, Chang (2021-06-09). "A look inside Shein, the $45 billion retail enigma upending the global fashion industry". SupChina. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
"'I have to speak up': Designer claims Shein, WeWoreWhat stole her design in viral TikTok". The Daily Dot. 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH. It tends to keep a low profile, but it overtook Amazon as the most installed shopping app back in May 2021 in the US. Here are some additional significant coverage in reliable sources:

Liao, Rita (2021-05-18). "Shein overtakes Amazon as the most installed shopping app in US". TechCrunch. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-02-10). "Shein: Is China's Mysterious $15 Billion Fast Fashion Retailer Ready For Stores?". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
Faithfull, Mark (2021-06-04). "Fast Fashion Retailer Shein Denies Rumors Of IPO Amid Surging Market". Forbes. Retrieved 27 June 2021.
McCormick, Packy; Matthew, Brennan. "Shein: The TikTok of Ecommerce". www.notboring.co. Retrieved 27 June 2021.

Big Wang (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivone

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

Fails NCORP. None of the sources satisfies the criteria of CORPDEPTH as they are about deals and acquisitions. This article in Economic Times is from Brand Equity which is basically ET's press release section. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources are either trivial or primary in nature. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbullah Magomedov

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

They are famous and there is no doubting that but notability and fame aren’t one and the same and unfortunately their notability is very much questionable. A major claim to notability revolves around a trifling rumored boxing fixture between subject of the article and another Internet personality. There is no WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV that is required by WP:GNG for notability to be satisfied. Furthermore WP:TOOSOON and WP:1E applies here. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2021 (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. The policy-based arguments below clearly show a consensus to delete, based off an analysis of the sourcing. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Coudrey

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

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

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

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

Covert upe WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. The sources used in the article are hardly about the article’s subject. A WP:BEFORE also yields nothing to corroborate notability claims. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article for a number of reasons and believe the subject does meet WP:GNG. #1. Subject has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News. This means the journalists reached out to the subject to request a quote from him to include in their articles. This indicates the subject is reputable in the particular topics, often biotech and US politics. #2. 5 MSM media outlets indicate him as the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for US Politicians." If he works with US elected officials, it gives credibility to the notion of reputability. #3. He is verified on his social media platforms. This indicates the subject has passed the notability requirements of social media companies. Yes, the article may need clean up, but no it should not be deleted. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:JalenPhotos2 has made few edits outside of the Michael J Coudrey article and this AFD and made their first edit at 12:44, 24 May 2021 (see here: [2] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2))[reply]

Comment — you are more than welcome to bring to this AFD any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Please kindly address the COI concerns as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Celestina007 Addressed on my talk page. Your comments appeared slightly hostile, RE: "I know you are online" etc. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've pulled together a few more notability links that should meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. I intend to work these into the article to improve it. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, The first source is re-echoing the subject of the article and fails to meet WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, the second and the third are laughable as both sources do not reference the subject of our discussion and he is merely mentioned in passing hence WP:SIGCOV is again not met. More concerning is, why have you yet not disclosed your COI with the subject of your article as required? Why wouldn’t you disclose your COI with the subject of the article or do you not know how to declare a COI? See WP:COI for assistance. I am logging a second warning on your TP. If I have to warn you again to disclose a COI I am reporting you to ANI, for WP:NOTHERE purposes where I’d ensure an indefinite block is evoked on you for violating our TOU. Furthermore WP:ADMASQ falls under WP:SPAM which constitutes what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, You first nominated my article for deletion. Then you posted on my talk page asking if I was doing paid editing work, and I responded that I have never been paid directly or indirectly to make any edits, whatsoever. You then demanded I add a paid tag to my profile, when this would be inaccurate. You are now claiming I have a COI and I wrote an article masquerading as an advertisement, and then threatened an indefinite block. This harassment is not okay! Perhaps I am not understanding your line of reasoning, but what is the basis for these hostile communications/allegations? Please respond on my talk page. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, I have asked you five times what the connection is between you and the subject of your article is and five times you have been evasive about responding to that. Your comments imply that you aren’t guilty of anything, fine, so could you please explain how the image on the article is your own work yet you haven’t disclose a COI? How any why is that? Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, easily explained and posted on my talk page in response to your question. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, this explanation is improbable as it is as shady as they come and yes even if I were to believe you, that appears to be COI, the photo was taken upclose. Furthermore a WP:BEFORE shows the subject of the article is blatantly non notable. I’m going ahead to log in a third warning on your tp. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, We had a team of 3 photographers working the event. I was interested in learning more about the attendees as many have successes in business, and I run a small business. It is very probable, because its the truth. Really not okay that you're logging a 3rd warning. You've been nothing but hostile, instead of guiding and helping. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, no! you took the photo upclose and your excuse are negligible at best. Asides that why did you create a promotional article for s non notable individual? Do you trouble comprehending WP:GNG if yes, then submitting via AFC should be the best course of action since you aren’t experienced or are having troubles understanding how GNG works. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, It is not okay that you are making an allegation like that and then deciding it's the "truth", when it is not. It is not a promotional article, I tried my best to follow guidelines and believed the subject is notable. I still feel very strongly that he is notable and should be included in Wikipedia. Next time I will use AFC to avoid these toxic interactions/bullying. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2 Lucky enough for both of us I have AFC pseudo right, so if you attempt to create another WP:ADMASQ via AFC, I would be waiting for you and when I do I’m taking you to WP:COIN or even worse, ANI. Furthermore if(emphasis on if)you are evading a block now might just be a good time to cease and desist from such doltish behavior. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources, nearly all of them are only quoting him, which does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. While it is good on him that he is CEO of a political organization, that doesn't give notability under GNG unless reliable sources provide significant coverage regarding that. Being verified on social media also doesn't give notability under GNG, it just means you're popular enough on that particular social media site. Also I would like to note that source 10, the only source that has significant coverage, allows you to buy an interview and decide what's written which makes it non-independent and thus unusable in terms of notability. Jumpytoo Talk 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. The sources in the article (except for IMDB) seem reliable, including the ones indicated by JalenPhotos2. Though the article needs a little clean-up, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against JalenPhotos2 is baseless. He has no relation to the subject at all. Working hard to look for sources for a certain subject does not mean he is related to the latter. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree with your assessment of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the entire source material. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are reliable but not significant coverage of the subject. Mere quotes of the subject do not constitute in depth coverage. Further interviews lack the independence necessary to pass GNG. This is not even close to meeting our notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 I would tend to disagree. WP:SIGCOV in Heavy, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article. Sig cov in Patch, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article, Sig cov in Science Magazine, whereas the subject is not the entire topic but is significantly more than a trivial mention as per WP:SIGCOV Policy. Subject also has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News , satisfying WP:GNG Reliable, Sources, Presumed criteria. In regards to Presumed, these quoted pieces (which are more than a trivial mention) creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Considering this would you reconsider or update your position? JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I would also implore you to examine two further sources from local news and Reuters News. Subjects comments are the reason both articles where created, with the former having the subject be the main topic of the entire source material. Again, Presumed criteria creates assumption that the subject merits its own article on Wikipedia. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ Detailed source analysis I was asked to reconsider my opinion based on the sources, so I have decided to put together a detailed table, analyzing the sources:

Source analysis
Source	Description	Main Subject?	Significant Coverage?	Policy
Rosenberg, Matthew; Corasaniti, Nick (2019-11-10). "Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a close election in Kentucky; Coudrey is mentioned briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Tenbarge, Kat. "A QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey went so viral that it provoked her to respond, showing the scope of coronavirus misinformation". Insider. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Twitter and Trump; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
EDT, Ewan Palmer On 8/28/20 at 12:56 PM (2020-08-28). "Why Kyle Rittenhouse, filmed fleeing armed attackers, was charged with murder". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article about prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"How a chance Twitter thread launched Trump's favorite coronavirus drug". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Dr. Laura Coudrey MD". US News. Retrieved June 17, 2021.	Profile of Coudrey's mother; paid for section and therefore not independent; no mention of subject	No	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Entrepreneur Michael Coudrey Discusses Business-Minded Childhood, Present Activities". CC Discovery. 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Interview of Courdrey by Canyon Country Discovery Center; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Presenting the Class of 2011". Kings Park, NY Patch. 2011-06-23. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	List of Kings Park High School graduates; verifies he graduated but is just one name among many	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
"Virus consipracy-theory video shows challenges for big tech". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on the 26-minute documentary-style video dubbed “Plandemic,”; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (2019-08-10). "Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction: Proof to Rumor Emerges Weeks Later". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction; Coudrey is briefly quoted; tabloid quality source	No	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV
Hines, Jan. "Behind the Growing Political Social Media Powerhouse Headed by Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey". Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Interview of Michael Coudrey in Sweet Startups; source often interviews people for pay; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SIGCOV/ WP:SOURCE
"Trump Pushes Malaria Drug for Virus But Evidence Is Lacking". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Woman Allegedly Attacked In Austin For Wearing MAGA Cap". Austin, TX Patch. 2019-03-13. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article about the alleged attack on Haley Maddox; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Giller, Marc (2019-11-14). "Is impeachment just a cover for Obama era corruption?". Conservative Christian News. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Adam Schiff’s impeachment “inquiry”; Coudrey is quoted briefly; source itself is questionable in quality	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SOURCE
Brigham, Bob. "'The backpedal begins': Trump backs off vaping crackdown — and he 'profited from the vape industry'". www.rawstory.com. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Trump and vaping policy/agenda; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS
"Analysis \| One America News's Ukraine-Rudy Giuliani exposé is a stunning piece of propaganda". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Main subject is the America News Network and Rudy Guiliani's reporting on Joe Biden; Coudrey is mentioned briefly in one sentence	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Coronavirus conspiracy-theory video 'Plandemic' shows challenges for big tech". timesfreepress.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article on the "Plandemic" film; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey Threatens Author Over Defamation". Beverly Hills, CA Patch. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Local News source covering a twitter fight in what's essentially tabloid type press; this is the local hometown paper of where Coudrey grew up and its independence is questionable	Yes	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV/WP:SOURCE
WesselJun. 22, Lindzi; 2020; Pm, 5:30 (2020-06-22). "'It's a nightmare.' How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics". Science \| AAAS. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `{{cite web}}`: `\|last2=` has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article is about the use of chloroquine to treat Covid; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Reuters Staff (2020-11-04). "Fact check: Wisconsin did not have more votes than people registered". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `{{cite news}}`: `\|author=` has generic name (help)	Article is about rumors surrounding the Wisconsin election. Article corrects wrong information spread by Coudrey and others	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article is about Twitter and Trump and mail-in ballots; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Fichera, Angelo (2019-08-12). "Unproven Claim of 'Camera Malfunction' Before Epstein's Death". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Essentially a fact check of Coudrey's and others false claims on Twitter about camera malfunctions before Epstein's death; the rumor is the main subject not Coudrey himself	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Michael Coudrey". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	IMDB/ unreliable source	Yes	No	WP:IMDB

As you can see, not a single source meets the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Coudrey is essentially a political commentator on social media, and we would treat him much the same way we treat journalists. In these cases mere quotes are part of the routine job of a journalist /political commentator. We only consider journalists and political commentators notable when they themselves become the main subject of multiple sources in independent references. That hasn't happened here. This is a solid delete.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 Very much appreciate your analysis and opinions in regards to interpretation of policy. Although, I would strongly disagree with your assertions based on a number of factors. For one, 'Coudrey is not a journalist or commentator'. He is the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for politicians" (According to The New York Times, Politico, Fox News). Two, based on what I mentioned above, the subject does not need to always be the main topic of the source material, so long as its more than a trivial mention. When the subjects work is the reason the article is written or he is being quoted by the journalist to be included in the piece, that is more than a "trivial" mention. Being that there are a significant amount of quoted materials from large news organizations based on the subjects profession in business, this creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thirdly, I think your analysis does not accurately factor in Presumed criteria as per WP:SIGCOV. I do appreciate the time you took to analyze and create the table, but I stress to others that it is still an opinion and individual interpretation of policy. Curious to hear others thoughts. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2, and yet you are arguing for his notability based on his quotes which are all political commentary and have nothing to do with his role as a CEO of YukoSocial. You can't have it both way. Further, several of the sources in the article call him a "twitter commentator" when quoting him. Also, I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies in this case. That's a policy for how we treat statistics, large collections of data, etc. However, to quote that policy "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Ultimately, that applies here. These isolated quotes lack significant analysis, and by stringing them together in an article without any additional sources where the main subject is the primary subject, we are essentially building an article the is an WP:Original synthesis. That's why this article is a clear delete. 4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article are reliable. I agree the quotes in significant outlets like The NY Times merit the subject have its own article. Article needs slight clean-up, but it does pass WP:GNG. Pctweaks (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Pctweaks has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Almost all the sources are deprecated and partisan: Fox News, Newsweek (once an iconic weekly, now owned by a sect), local affiliates of media, the blog Heavy.com, Imdb and the like. If you cut all that out, there would be very little left of content with a couple of citations from the Washington Post. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – 4meter4 has set out very clearly that Coudrey does not meet the notability standards. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is quite the discussion and I somehow got roped into reading it. After reviewing this all though, I am of the opinion that he fails to meet notability guidelines. I generally agree with other people's reasonings on why this is to be deleted. It seems like he's trying to be notable and it's having some effect, but it does not cross the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Lots of very many brief mentions count for something, but not very much on its own and isn't enough. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some clean ups and having reliable sources its evident enough that it has passed The sources in the article WP:GNG. It has reliable sources such as NY times, Washighton Posts, Fox News are reliable. ShaddyAmbani (Note: User:ShaddyAmbani has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. Subject is notable, sources pass sig cov and WP:GNG. Appears the nominator has a personal bias against the article creator. Should not have been nominated for deletion. Physcho711 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Physcho711 has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Hi 4meter4, Not sure what is up with both of those entries, but this deletion thread has been a long and fruitful discussion with many members of the community contributing on both sides. I have zero affiliation with those two recent accounts. Should they be related, I'd suggest an admin remove their entries so that we may carry the conversation forward here. I've been on wiki for quite some time and have made a significant amount of edits for the good of the community. Your decision to bring me into the case is baseless. Looking forward to a CheckUser. Kindly, JalenPhotos2 (talk)

JalenPhotos2, I think it best that we not derail this AFD by commenting on the investigation here. You can make comments at the discussion page linked above, which I see you have already done.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have had impact and plenty of references...not sure why the action to delete but I am no expert.CaliBuds (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:CaliBuds has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see that Coudrey has had impact on this field and seems to be respected. Just my 2 cents.SugarHiller (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)— SugarHiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete:Per 4meter4's analysis. Seems like some random rich guy who has some internet clout within right leaning circles, but I don't think there is enough coverage to substantiate WP:GNG. Being quoted and covered for random Tweeting controversies is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Also, I feel like we are encountering WP:STONEWALLING that is preventing consensus. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the author had good reason to create the article and was sincere. The subject has more citations that the more notable people I try to write about! TexasToasters (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)— TexasToasters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment — The influence of socks and spas in this AFD is indicative of the non notability status of the subject of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —@Celestina007, I created this article and there has been fruitful discussion from both sides for the last 4 weeks without issue. This recent attention and potential socks (not yet confirmed) has now negatively manipulated this conversation. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2 and Celestina007 please refrain from commenting on socks or spas on this page. You may do so at the investigation page. Also, JalenPhotos2 please refrain from making value judgements;; as the investigative process and notifications at this AFD are policy based reasonable reactions that are necessary no matter the final outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gnutella2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FileScope

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. This software was abandoned in 2014 and lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The subject is mentioned in various research articles, for example: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=19843 (PhD thesis), http://artemis.cslab.ece.ntua.gr:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14783, http://dwl.kiev.ua/art/p2p/p2p-end.pdf The latter mentions that the subject is one of the most used clients for Gnutella2. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Thanks for finding these links. Unfortunatelly, I don't think even one of them has "in-depth coverage" of FileScope. The second (Greek) and third (Russian) sources just list FileScope among many other programs, they do not have a single sentence fully dedicated to FileScope. I could not find download link for the first source, but abstract does not inspire confidene and even if this source was in-depth, it would not be sufficient basis to hinge notability on. Perhaps, there are more sources? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: I agree about the Spanish and the Greek sources. They basically mention that the subject is one of several other P2P clients supporting Gnutella2. The Russian source is saying that it's one of the most popular Gnutella2 clients. From the GNG point of view the subject is not notable, of course. However, the WP:NSOFT policies allow to include the software which is notable in a specific field, not necessarily in the general scope. If Gnutella2 is a notable P2P technology, then the most popular clients for Gnutella2 should be notable as well, based on WP:NSOFT. That's why I voted to keep the article. If my interpretation of WP:NSOFT is wrong or Gnutella2 is not notable, then I will not insist. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Wikipedia articles need content useful to readers and supported by reliable sources. Right now, I don't see anything that could warrant more than two sentences about Filescope. As of now, FileScope article just creates confussion and does not convey much information. It has only one reference to filescope.com which is meant to support a vague claim that "the application is cross-platform but current builds only support running it under Microsoft Windows, but it is due to also run under Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unix-based platforms." So does it support only Windows or Linux/Mac OS/Unix? The Russian source just states (translated for convenience): "The most popular client programs for Gnutella2 are Shareaza, Kiwi, Alpha, Morpheus, Gnucleus, Adagio Pocket G2, FileScope, iMesh, MLDonkey." This content might be suitable for Gnutella2 article, but not really useful in FileScope.

If there is actual content which could be used in FileScope, I'd be glad to integrate it into FileScope myself if noone else wants to do it. If there is no supported content suitable for an article, logically, there can be no article. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you. So, I'm withdrawing my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of this writing I don't see how this passes WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't have any reliable sources in English for the software, so I think the prospects for getting an adequate-quality article under this name are slight. I'm inclined to redirect/merge, in view of the fact that the article is referred to by many other articles, may be of interest to people researching history of file sharing, and has scholarly documentation in other languages. However, none of the filesharing articles I've looked to are really adequate targets. If we had a list of P2P file sharing applications, that would be the most obvious; as a distant second best, we could target Gnutella2#Clients. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: There are actually very few content articles with links to FileScope. Most of them actually use Template:Gnutella2, which includes FileScope. Therefore after FileScope deletion (if we decide to delete it) it would be trivial to remove all dead links to FileScope. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gnutella2#Clients - following the discussion on Dr.KBAHT's retracted !vote, that seems the most relevant place discussing the software. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Gnutella2#Clients.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2021 (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. Sandstein 09:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chat-Avenue

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

There have been PROD and speedy attempts in the past, let's see what folks here at AfD make of this...

This chat site may be well-established and popular, but I cannot find any proper secondary RS coverage of it, so I'm moving for deletion on notability grounds — fails WP:GNG / WP:WEBSITE.

That said, TBH it does get some media attention, but it seems all to do with paedophile sting operations etc., and even then in local press only, so I don't know if any of that counts as sigcov. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability (WP:GNG) grounds - no RS coverage beyond, as pointed out, local media paedophile sting stuff. It's not even the world's oldest chat room, so there's no excuse to name check it in the Chat room article, even. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources and presumed notability grounds- Chat Avenue is by far one of the oldest and most popular community chat websites on the web (even existing before Facebook, Omegle and Chatroulette). A considerable amount of media-related coverages have also been aired by leading publications such as the BBC and Reddit— with articles dating back to decades ago. There are also many new articles over the past couple decades that mention "Chat Avenue" by name without giving further information. Any individual searching for more information regarding Chat Avenue would discover it here. The deletion of this article would suggest deleting every page linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chat_websites in addition to thousands of other articles categorised specifically for chat sites. There have been multiple PROD and speedy deletions attempts in the past which were all rejected. Reeebsss (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)— Reeebsss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Presumed notability'? 'One of the oldest chat websites'? These are not policy grounds. And deletion of this article has nothing to do with the others listed in the chat websites one. As for whether previous speedy or PROD attempts were successful has no bearing on this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added recent secondary RS coverage. Chat Avenue IS mentioned by many publications (not just some local ones as you claim) and has a very long and extensive history at that. Many of the articles mention chat avenue by name only without much details. A wikipedia article would clear that up for those people and provide some usefulness to this already popular site. Previously speedy deletion and PROD attempts shows that this article has been reviewed before. Bringing this back up yet again would be redundant and questionable, IMO. --Reeebsss (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just stumbled on this now. Definitely keep. This website is extremely popular and makes headlines often. Many senior editors have edited this article in the past without seeing the need for a deletion. I noticed RS were added recently, so i think it meets the necessary requirements of remaining. Anniehh13 (talk) 03:34, 03 July 2021 (UTC)— Anniehh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist. This needs some more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got significant coverage in a reliable source, seems good enough to me. Mlb96 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2021 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacBreak

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. It appears that all the references are primary sources, and I'm unable to find any reliable secondary sources using Google News. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2011 (here), but the discussion ended with no consensus. It could perhaps be merged with one of the hosts' articles, but the podcast is already mentioned in each article with the exception of Leo Laporte. I'm not sure there is much to merge into those articles anyway considering there aren't any useful sources. The podcast doesn't appear to be mentioned on TWiT.tv and might deserve a short mention. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major hosts like Leo Laporte, iJustine and Andy Ihnatko. As I JethroBT noted in the first AfD, this is a commonly referenced outlet in the tech journalism industry (zdnet, cnet, Wired, etc) [3][4][5] I'll also point out that the nom in the first AfD played shenanigans by actually !voting twice in their own AfD and were the only "delete" votes, drawing it to an inappropriate "no consensus" close. Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: None of the sources you've listed above actually discuss what Macbreak is or present any useful information about it. Most of these barely mention the podcast. For instance, this article only mentions the podcast in a list of other podcasts inside of parentheses as an afterthought of someone being interviewed. Most of these sources also mention Macbreak in relation to one of the hosts, which seems to indicate that the source is much more concerned with the hosts as subjects than the podcast itself. The CNET articles are all written by the same person who appears to have been on the podcast on at least four separate occasions and on those occasions wrote the one to two sentence articles that you've cited here, here, here, and here as well as an article where he only mentions macbreak because the podcast responded to him here. I would say that none of these CNET articles are "independent of the subject," but even if they are still considered independent I wouldn't consider a few one sentence articles grounds for a stand-alone article. Even the Wired articles lack any useful information and one of them (here) is not much longer than the CNET announcements. As far as I can tell these sources don't meet WP:GNG because they do not "address the topic directly and in detail" and there are no sources that have "more than a trivial mention" of the podcast itself. I would also like to note that it doesn't matter if the hosts are notable or not because the deletion discussion is on the subject of the podcast not the people. I also think that whether or not the previous deletion discussion was fair or not is irrelevant to the current discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I mentioned the inappropriate "no consensus" close of the previous discussion is because you brought it up in your deletion rationale. Thanks for the other info. Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the previous nomination to demonstrate that I was complying with guidelines 4 and 5 under WP:BEFORE and to provide context for this AfD. I think a decade is sufficient time between AfDs and I do not feel that my concerns have previously been addressed in adaquete detail. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was recently introduced to the "notability fallacies" and I believe the previous arguments to keep the page fall under these fallacies. Saying that the hosts are notable is an argument that the podcast should WP:INHERIT notability. Referencing searches on various outlets is a mix of WP:GHITS or perhaps WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:TRIVCOV. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made these arguments. Let other editors weigh in and see if you've built a consensus to delete this article.Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing unnecessary parts and primary sources like Twit.tv. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Oakshade and in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: would you mind linking to one or two of the sources you believe demonstrate notability? As far as I can tell the only source from the previous AfD that isn't a permanently dead link is this one, which dedicates less than a dozen words to the topic of MacBreak. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2021 (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. BD2412 T 04:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillmor Gang

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. I searched for quite a while on Google News and couldn't find any sources that were reliable secondary sources of information. The podcast appears to have been produced by TechCrunch and Steve Gillmor wrote articles for TechCrunch that have been republished by YahooNews under different domain names. After excluding any search results from TechCrunch and Yahoo news there are some very questionable sites that have published the podcast's newletter, which I believe would still be considered a primary source. Aside from that there are a few other mentions of the words "gillmor" and "gang" in some articles, but they refer to other things. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's actions puzzle me. There was a WP:PROD message put on the article, and I improved it on the same day with updated information and removed the template as was prescribed by the guidelines - "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." And yet here we are on the AfD. The podcast had its heyday and influence and was one of the first podcasts in this space when it started in May 2004, being a firm part of Internet history if you look at the guests and presence. You cannot (and should not) simply go by Google News or we are in big trouble all around. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuzheado, can you please provide independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of this podcast? Right now the article's references are almost exclusively from sources with direct connections to the podcast itself so I don't believe they meet the requirements of being independent. Many of the sources are directly from the podcast and it's hosts which makes them primary sources. As far as I'm aware having notable guests on a podcast does not make the podcast notable. Similarly, it doesn't even matter if the hosts are notable. I was going by Google News because there aren't many print sources on podcasts, but based on a quick Google Books search there only appears to be trivial mentions in couple sources. I would be very suprised if there are any physical newspapers that mention the podcast but if someone has a newspapers.com membership they could check for you. Perhaps I opened a AfD process sooner than was appropriate, but I don't think demonstrating WP:GNG for this subject is possible TipsyElephant (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC

TipsyElephant, I can confirm that "Gillmor Gang" does not turn up any hits on newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return books containing passing mentions of it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources on page do not pass WP:RS. Probably a bit too soon. Sasquatch t|c 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries. Clear consensus for the page not to exist (delete + merge), so per ATD, closing as merge & redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrongVPN

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG. It has significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than basic program spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe that it's quite spam, I cannot find any independent sourcing outside of reviews.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being notable and border line spam/promotional. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries: Not notable enough to warrant its own article. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since I already casted my vote and others are disagreeing. I don't see any problems with reviews. They provide significant, independent reliable coverage of the subject. They are published by TechRadar (who calls it "a major VPN brand"), ZDNet, Tom's Hardware and PCWorld who all meet the WP:RS requirements. Apart from the reviews, the subject is mentioned in works published by academic publishers like Springer Publishing and Association for Computing Machinery and the acquisition has been mentioned in the news. Based on these sources, the subject can have a standalone article per WP:GNG, and can also be extended. The article is written with WP:NPOV in mind, I don't think it is promotional or spam at all. Also, the article has been extended since being nominated. Above of that, the nominator has been accused here of improper nominations and not following WP:BEFORE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but beside the point. The nominator is not being discussed here, the article is. The article subject actually fails GNG, as 'mentions' don't have weight in SIGCOV. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No defining features that make it unique, or notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is checked by validating sources against WP:GNG, which is fine in this case. Also, please read WP:IGNORINGATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as WP:ATD. With what's currently in the article a brief section on the parent companies article seems like a good solution. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another, non-notable program; or Merge a (referenced) line to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as suggested above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting my reply here so it is clear it was posted after the relisting. @GenQuest: I was only discussing the nominator after stating my relevant argument. And the article does not fail WP:GNG, you are reading my comment the wrong way. It is only 'just' mentioned in the academic source by ACM. In the Springer article, there is a paragraph about their logging policy. The reviews I mentioned earlier definitely provide SIGCOV (and all the other aspects required for the GNG). Please evaluate them yourself before voting delete. I am still voting keep. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources are cited. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshi Lhendup Films

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

aside from some passing mentions and interviews, there is nothing in depth about Lhendup or the film company BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable YouTube channel. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy. WP:NYOUTUBE is not vetted by community. Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~The only non-trivial coverage from what may qualify as a reliable source is the dailybhutan, and that's not sufficient for WP:GNG.~~ On second thought, relative to the context of the Bhutan market, the two articles from the BBS are probably sufficient in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Broadcasting Service (national broadcaster) is not reliable? Störm (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ohnoitsjamie. Störm (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough in English-language to pass WP:GNG, given the fact that Bhutan has a small media and most of the coverage is inaccessible as we don't know the local language (Dzongkha in this case). Featured in a radio station too. Störm (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeshi Lhendup Films is very famous and is our role model. I scanned magazine published in December 18 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZkPH7tnLUCjsS-whYz6LJHCEPf5bUoE/view), (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6J5XCE5GVe-M9GXETJvQXX-p40Ljz6w/view) Bhutan magazines are offline so please look into.
Delete First off, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which imposes a much stricter interpretation of guidelines, especially when it comes to "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). None of the references meet the higher standards required and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non-notable based on my research. Kolma8 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other XfDs

[1] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/52052-geliyoo-ceo-su-onemli-gelismeleri-linkedin-den-paylasti.html

[2] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/services.html

[3] ttp://www.sosyalsosyal.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo-com-roportaj

[4] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/about.html

[5] ttp://www.geliyoobilisim.com/blog_post_4.html

[6] ttp://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/53169-mozilla-5-0-compatible-geliyoobot-1-0-http-www-geliyoo-com.html

[7] ttp://www.haber7.com/internet/haber/1047133-turk-motoru-geliyoo-rss-servisini-yayina-aciti

[8] ttp://haber.gazetevatan.com/turk-yapimi-arama-motoru-geliyoo-aktif/550678/43/Gundem

[9] ttp://www.reklamazzi.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo.134298.htm

[10] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[11] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/propaganda-in-istanbul.html

[12] ttps://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694

[13] ttps://www.newsbreak.com/news/2248424580812/a-young-entrepreneur-who-believes-in-creating-a-space-for-himself-in-the-industry-anuj-pradhan

[14] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/331822015_Geliyoo_Web_Browser

[15] ttp://marketersmedia.com/geliyoo-com-announces-a-new-all-in-one-search-site/3587

[16] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[17] ttps://www.haberler.com/geliyoo/

[18] ttps://ipsnews.net/business/2021/04/18/4-awards-given-to-hakan-atabas-at-once-in-the-fields-of-blockchain-and-finance/

[19] ttps://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02

[20] ttp://www.habertorial.com/2012/11/21/turkiyenin-en-kapsamli-link-arsivi-gmoz-geliyoo/

[21] ttps://clutch.co/tr/web-developers/istanbul?page=1

[22] ttps://plex.page/Geliyoo

[23] ttps://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201701191026837454-yerli-arama-motoru-google-sonuc/

[24] ttps://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-tepki-gordu-2598805

[25] ttps://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bir-turkiye-hikayesi-10-yil-calistik-googlea-yerli-rakip-yaptik-dediler-altindan-bakin-ne-cikti-661817

[26] ttps://www.sabah.com.tr/teknokulis/haberler/2017/01/19/bakanliktan-beklenen-geliyoo-arama-motoru-aciklamasi

[27] ttps://www.milliyet.com.tr/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-2380016

[28] ttps://www.hurriyet.com.tr/teknoloji/iste-yerli-arama-motorumuz-geliyoo-40338705

[29] "Sixty Billion Stars. And No Aliens? What Now?". Mind Matters. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[30] Dinerstein, MBA, Chuck (2018-10-02). "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - a Useful Toolkit". American Council on Science and Health. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[TelegraphSGU-31] Storr, Will. "'Ebola is man-made', and other crazy conspiracy theories". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[32] Pomeroy, Ross. "Scientist Goes on Epic Rant About 60 Minutes' Gullible Story on UFOs". Fairfield Sun Times. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[33] Marielle, Alaikia (2019-03-22). "Binge Bytes: 'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe'". The Daily Utah Chronicle. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[34] McFadden, Christopher (2019-10-06). "7+ of the Best Science Podcasts for 2019". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[35] "12 Best Space and Science Podcasts to Listen to Right Now". The Manual. 2021-04-05. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[36] "Nonfiction Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake by Steven Novella, with Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria, Jay Novella, and Evan Bernstein. Grand Central, $30 (496p) ISBN 978-1-5387-6051-2". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[37] "THE SKEPTICS' GUIDE TO THE UNIVERSE Kirkus Reviews". Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[38] Editors, The (2019-01-03). "'The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe' by Steven Novella - RealClearBooks". www.realclearbooks.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[39] Dombrowski, Eileen (2018-11-19). "TOK Book Review: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake". Oxford Education Blog. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[40] "About The Skeptics Guide to the Universe". 2018-12-04. Retrieved 24 June 2021.

[41] Oh, Woo Taek; Jun, Jin Woo; Giri, Sib Sankar; Yun, Saekil; Kim, Hyoun Joong; Kim, Sang Guen; Kim, Sang Wha; Han, Se Jin; Kwon, Jun; Park, Se Chang (September 2019). "Staphylococcus xylosus Infection in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) As a Primary Pathogenic Cause of Eye Protrusion and Mortality". Microorganisms. 7 (9): 330. doi:10.3390/microorganisms7090330. PMC 6780347. PMID 31500280.

[42] Gornatti-Churria, Carlos D.; Crispo, Manuela; Shivaprasad, H. L.; Uzal, Francisco A. (March 2018). "Gangrenous dermatitis in chickens and turkeys". Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation : Official Publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc. 30 (2): 188–196. doi:10.1177/1040638717742435. ISSN 1040-6387. PMC 6505868. PMID 29145799.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]