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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byel

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

Was tagged as a G5 but I was unable to convince myself that G5 applies. I'll let the prior declined speedies and PRODs in the history speak for themselves:

WP:PROMOTION created by a cross-wiki spam. Their draft was declined, and yet they created the article. They also created this article in several other (mostly small) WPs.

YouTube content creator with limited visibility! A paid promotion linked to an entry on Wikipedia in another language, also created by the same user, raises doubts about the nature of this content, possibly suggesting it's an advertisement. I believe that the page dedicated to a Brazilian actor and YouTuber does not meet notability standards due to a lack of appropriate sources. Of the 7 cited sources, IMDb is generally considered unreliable, and the mentioned films on the page are not widely recognized, making the article questionable in terms of relevance..

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its related to pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos_a_verificadores/Caso/Isaías_José_Silva_Oliveira_Neto and/or pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a verificadores/Caso/Brasilesports. Cross wiki spam. Augustresende (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biel_TVZ and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biel_TVZ_(2nd_nomination). Augustresende (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cross-wiki spam. Subject appears notable looking at the Brazilian press links but in one of the few cases where I advocate “Ignore all rules”, we should delete this and block the user if not already blocked. Also, the specific IMDb and YouTube links should be blacklisted, preferably on Meta since this is a cross-wiki problem. There’s a potential for collateral damage from getting the Regex wrong so the blacklisting should be done by a blacklist-savvy admin. I’ll note that spamming small wikis is a particular problem since they have limited defenses. (I’m a former Meta admin with previous spam cleanup experience - that’s why I have an edit history on 180+ WMF projects). The article should be salted, too. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and support everything else A. B. said, the cross wiki spam of it all is troubling. Moritoriko (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Basic. COI issues and promotion signify not notable imo. Agree with comments on wiki spam. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anime with Alvin episodes

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

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

Two episode lists for YouTube cooking shows, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NWEB. We don't even have articles about the series, just one about the overall YouTube channel that they're distributed on -- and each of these is referenced to a single news article each to verify that the shows exist, while otherwise referencing the actual content of the lists (i.e. the episode titles, airdates and YouTube view counts) to their own primary source presences on YouTube or the host's own self-published website rather than reliable third-party sourcing.
So if the shows could be properly verified as having enough reliable source coverage to earn their own standalone articles as separate topics from the overall channel, then we could include the episode lists in the show articles -- but we don't need standalone episode lists if the shows don't even have articles at all, and we'd need to see a lot more than just one reliable source each to justify articles about the shows. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Internet, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither show is inherently notable given the lack of reliable independent sources for the shows themselves. There is little chance of individual episodes, or even the entire group of episodes, could also be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Instead of trying to delete it, help contribute to the article. Thats the point of Wikipedia. Bluehawkking (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no extant sourcing to make this a stronger article. Almost all coverage is dedicated to the main series or the chef himself. Moritoriko (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then frickin delete then, dude. Bluehawkking (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2025 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teee Dollar of Lagos

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

Non-notable TikToker. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources, promotional nonsense, no notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article published yesterday by somebody with zero edits before this. TikTok notability, while many people may know this individual (with over 5 million followers on the platform), he clearly does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. All the articles cited are websites that are not known for genuine news outlets - there is nothing to indicate he has done anything noteworthy outside of TikTok. Ré union! 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable Tiktoker. That he has 5.8 million followers doesn't mean he is notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability besides social media. No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't have enough notability to pass WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO as nominated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2025 (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 Social media measurement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Views (social media)

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

I don’t think this topic/concept requires an individual page to elaborate. Potential WP:OR as well. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content views, their analysis, and related metrics, markets, meaning, and/or social or capital value are all subjects of measurable and enduring effect in today’s society. The article is nascent, but research of its topic will be published in sociology, media and economics journals. James Bateaux (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We write articles about topics that are already published in sources, not topics that “will be published”. See WP:CRYSTAL ApexParagon (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social media measurement for now. Could have its own article in the future once it’s more widely covered in sources ApexParagon (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social media measurement (previously, Weak Keep) - The current article is very poor, but this is a topic that has certainly generated a lot of academic and industry chatter over the years. I'm not totally sure it makes sense to have a separate article for this topic, and I don't think Social media measurement is a great redirect target. Trivially, academics have investigated views as a metric of interest, especially as a proxy for popularity.^[1] Zhou et al. 2010 has 500+ citations, and I see a bunch of references via Google Scholar that discuss YouTube or other social media views directly. I have no citations, but I've seen and read other work discussing and using views as a metric in work on other social media platforms. Another context I'm familiar with that explicitly studies and discusses views is in relevance feedback for recommender systems. Views are discussed independent of social media specifically,^[2] but also as one metric among many used in the development of recommender systems.^[3] I would be absolutely astonished if minimal searching in STS, comms, and media studies journals doesn't uncover theorizing about views as an aspect of social media popularity, relevance, marketing, etc. Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of how social media research talks about views: Participants in our study frequently referred to interaction metrics like time viewing a video before they swiped or watching the same video repeatedly as key information that companies collect on them. .... According to Google’s Privacy Policy, they collect information about views and interactions with ads, for example, whether the user mouses over the ad or interacts with other parts of the web page. One hypothesis for why youth are attuned to captivation metrics is because of the surge in popular apps that are built for rapid feedback and meta-awareness of behavior. For example, the microinteractions in TikTok. Users swipe in TikTok to make a decision about whether the video attracts them, with the default of view time being a positive signal. Furthermore, features like Apple’s ScreenTime make users’ time spent on apps salient.^[4] I note that views is not really the primary topic here, and in general I think this content would be more appropriate on a page focused on broader conceptions of engagement with social media. For that reason, I've tweaked my vote to a redirect. Suriname0 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zhou, Renjie; Khemmarat, Samamon; Gao, Lixin (2010-11-01). "The impact of YouTube recommendation system on video views". Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement. IMC '10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 404–410. doi:10.1145/1879141.1879193. ISBN 978-1-4503-0483-2.
^ Ding, Jingtao; Yu, Guanghui; He, Xiangnan; Quan, Yuhan; Li, Yong; Chua, Tat-Seng; Jin, Depeng; Yu, Jiajie (2018). "Improving Implicit Recommender Systems with View Data". International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 3343–3349.
^ Jannach, Dietmar; Lerche, Lukas; Zanker, Markus (2018), Brusilovsky, Peter; He, Daqing (eds.), "Recommending Based on Implicit Feedback", Social Information Access: Systems and Technologies, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 510–569, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90092-6_14, ISBN 978-3-319-90092-6, retrieved 2025-05-20
^ Goray, Cami; Schoenebeck, Sarita (2022-11-11). "Youths' Perceptions of Data Collection in Online Advertising and Social Media". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6 (CSCW2): 475:1–475:27. doi:10.1145/3555576.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xait

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

After removing press releases and SYNTH, there's really not much here. Checking for sources doesn't show me anything that meets WP:NCORP, although it's possible there are some non-English sources that I didn't find in my search. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Norwegian National Library's newspaper archives have 84 results for "Xait" after 2000 [1]. Some are clearly bad OCR artifacts, but some are about this company. Will analyze tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 21:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, they are mostly bad OCR artifacts. Some passing mentions (e.g. job listings, or a guy who works there playing in a band) too. Delete. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toadspike's source analysis. Notability is not established either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Krzak

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

Fails WP:GNG zero independent reliable sources and conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched EBSCO database and Google News; and found only passing mentions confirming his animation credits, but lacking SIGCOV. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few sources are only mentions, social media or primary sources. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from what I can tell, an up and coming but not yet notable animator. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable coverage in independent media, apart from original research and possible not true facts in BLP page. Norlk (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an instagram page of self promotion. Nothing particularly notable and sourcing is poor. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2025 (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 Zendaya. ✗plicit 11:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zendaya's Hat Theory

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. At best, can be merged into main article and mentioned there. Article was AfC before possibly moved into main space without review. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like routine internet joke/temporary conspiracy theory. Currently lacking coverage in sustained coverage in reliable sources to deserve an article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zendaya: not notable enough for a separate article with only one source Laura240406 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zendaya: Definitely does not have enough coverage by WP:RS to be notable. This is just a rumour with nothing to back it. Possibly also creeping into WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. Couple sources worth a mention at parent article. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zendaya I found another source from Teen Vouge: [2], so it is certainly worth a mention in the parent article. Jumpytoo Talk 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not a big enough meme to justify its own page, but enough news coverage to justify a mention on Zendaya's page BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zendaya I think that it would be good to have this be a redirect, definitely does not seem notable enough for it to have its own page given the number of RSes present. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zendaya Not really notable on its own. Its just an internet fad. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countryhumans

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has already been deleted once and coverage has not improved since then. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a very small internet subculture without notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another semi-random internet fandom, no evidence of passing WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this page as a redirect to personification, if we can't find much reliable sources, we should make make it a redirect again. Also, the russian wikipedia article for Countryhumans has sources we could use--Thegoofhere (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are scholary notes on Countryhumans in Russian. I don't speak Russian and I doubt you guys do. If we could get a Russo, that would be great Thegoofhere (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are almost no reliable sources that discuss this topic in a meaningful way. The Russian iteration of Wikipedia has a single source that might be useful, but there are no other usable discussions of this fandom. A redirect would not make sense without a mention in the target article. However, this is far too minor to mention in a general article on national personifications. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added 4 sources, so I'm more worried about the reception, significance, and influence of Countryhumans, since WP:PLOT applies

Thegoofhere (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources seem reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge with Countryballs. Both articles are related. Although the Russian Countryhumans page has a few reliable sources like this Russian academic PDF (pp.153–158), it doesn't seem reasonable to have a standalone page about Countryhumans in English. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Countryballs. the origin of Countryhumans comes from Polandball, this is a reply from an Polandball fan. IndoMaja (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Countryhumans with Countryballs as a small section. We've established that Countryhumans are notable, but don't really deserve a separate article. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get that, it can't be notable if there are only minimal PDFs discussing it, and I can't see if they have been peer reviewed. I don't see anything worth merging, and I don't see the point in cramming poorly sourced information into another article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I retract my statement. Delete. Thegoofhere (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the 3 above. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not notable. The last AFD was SNOW delete too. Its just an internet fad. Was thinking of merge, but this article is just poorly sourced. Not much to salvage here. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that the article is poorly sourced and it barely passes any notability guidelines. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2025 (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. But it looks like there's consensus for "this article shouldn't exist at this title", so the next step may be WP:RM. asilvering (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RTP payload formats

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of RTP payload formats.

I agree with User:Pppery that this article is sort of a list, but disagree that this is inappropriate. The table that constitues the bulk of the article gives context and explanation, refuting the argument on directories and catalogs. Instead, it describes a notable subject: the fact that there exist plethora of RTP payloads. It serves as a stepping stone for further investigation and research for those with further interest.

I also disagree with User:MarioGom that a redirect should suffice and with User:Wcquidditch that the existence is sufficiently described in the main article. The referenced section only briefly summarises the large number of different formats.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment here (until now) has purely been deletion sorting; I have (and had) no opinion on the article. It is Anonrfjwhuikdzz that says that material at the main article — which I will note is Real-time Transport Protocol — is sufficient. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not convinced and exhaustive list is appropriate for wikipedia as we're not supposed to be a directory/catalog --- that's a job for the RFC series. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Editor only lists all RFCs and makes them available. It is not a function of the RFC Editor to present overviews per subject of any kind. The overview presented in RTP payload formats, compiled by many editors, stands on its own and has become a de facto source on the subject. This is reflected in the number of visitors of the page. Deletion would be a disservice to the public, IMHO; a rename better reflects the nature of the article.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NLIST: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Rename to List of RTP payload formats if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats per MarioGom. There is already a section in RTP main page. This looks like a list and notability is not really clear for a stand alone article. But it can be integrated to Real-time_Transport_Protocol#Standards_documents. I also do not think wikipedia is a repsitory of stuff, when external links can be used for a database that has such standards. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, Do you think that the WP:LISTN standard is met? If so, would you be happy if we renamed the article to make it clear that it is a list and closed this AfD.

As a stand-alone article, it sounds like you're making a WP:NOT argument. What section of that policy do you think applies here? I guess WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be the most likely mapping for repository of stuff but I personally don't see a clear match to this situation. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this meets WP:NLIST. Renaming may not help. I think an external link would be better than using Wikipedia as a depository. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MarioGom and Ramos1990 have suggested redirecting which I assume means they don't believe we should have a stand-alone article/list on this topic. Without providing a reason for this preference, I assume/hope whoever closes this discussion will not give these opinions much weight. ~Kvng (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explained more on my reasoning. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced this article is not acting as a directory for RFC articles/RTP payloads. Yes there is some discussion of these formats as a group which would qualify this for NLIST, but the arguments in favor of deletion/redirection have centered around what WP:ISNOT.

Outside of the opening summary there is not much providing context for the protocols. I don't understand the reasoning from @Dandorid that the table provides context or explanation to these protocols. These are just very basic summaries of the protocol specifications from my reading, but where is the context about development and uses that makes these entries something more than WP:NOTPLOT? Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA, so why not just link to their website in the main RTP protocol article for people with further interest? The only parts of the table that provided additional context were certain descriptions detailing changes in payload type/the reasons for reserved blocks but those specific instances could easily be added to the prose at Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats.

All of that said, I do want to change my vote to redirct with the target being the most appropriate section of Real-time Transport Protocol. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge with some other article, but absolutely don't delete the content. This article just helped me out today. Félix An (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates my point. Similar summary information seems to be available through IANA would be great to have, but I doubt it actually exists, Ramos1990. I believe this article summarises the wealth of options, in a way that a picture tells more than a thousand words. If you would summarise this page somewhere in a section of Real-time transport protocol you would need more than a thousand words to do the summary right.— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Keep or Rename. There is a dynamic that some fail to see here: Wikipedia is a primary source of information to many people. A sort of low information entropy: a concentration, a density, brought together by people that felt a certain need to do so. Destroying a page like this increases information entropy, which leaves you with a greater burden of finding the information (which undoubtedly exists in many places) yourself, and you only get it in bits and pieces. Most likely, somebody will recreate this page somewhere in the future, for the same reasons User:Sergeymasushko had when creating RTP payload formats. — _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an utterly meaningless argument - by this logic one should never delete anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the main idea of WP:Inclusionism on Wikipedia, and I support inclusionism. After all, WP:Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we already have Britannica, which is generally more reliable than Wikipedia (see WP:CW), and only chooses the most notable topics. I think the advantage of Wikipedia is that it covers more niche topics compared to a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, which is why I'm an inclusionist. I usually read Britannica to get a broad overview of more popular topics, and I use Wikipedia for more niche topics like computing (this article) and railways. Félix An (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If none of my arguments make any sense whatsoever (I guess that is what you mean by utterly meaningless) then, by your logic, you should delete all articles and do away with Wikipedia altogether. — _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: What's the justification for relisting this a second time? We're rehashing standard inclusionist/deletionist arguments and I'm sure you're aware we won't reach consensus on that here and continuing to discuss it does not foster goodwill between editors. There are no delete votes and it is pretty clear to me that the article meets WP:NLIST. The proposed merge or redirect suggestions can be worked on outside AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that we don't yet have consensus among the editors who are advancing policy-based arguments. The closer would need to discount the last two "keep" opinions. This means there is still no agreement as to keep or redirect. Sandstein 06:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An and Dandorid: can you offer us a policy-based reason why we should not delete this article? ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandorid Will you also please strike one of your bolded votes? I am seeing a keep and two bolded renames from you. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niels ten Oever

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

I don't think subject passes WP:NPROF - he is asst. prof, h-index of 12 and no named chair or prestigious professional memberships I can locate. Although he is briefly quoted in a few news articles due to his association with digital rights group Article 19, I don't see anything that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO. He co-authored a book w/ over a dozen other people but I can only find one possibly independent review in a reliable source. WP:BEFORE was done in google news/books/scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader (looking for Dutch and English sources). I don't see a clear merge/redirect target, and ultimately I think this might be WP:TOOSOON - as subject is still in relatively early days of his career (first publication was in 2017). Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Internet, and Netherlands. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on WP:NPROF. But this might qualify as WP:SIGCOV for WP:ANYBIO ? The work he has done with Mallory Knodel on oppressive language in the IETF got coverage in the New York Times ^[1], and the work he has done internet sanctions got covered in different places ^[2]^[3]. He also gets more widely cited about internet infrastructure governance issues, most notably outages in Wired ^[4] and The Face ^[5], on internet history and Web3 in the New Scientist ^[6], and on history of e-mail in Vox ^[7]. Seems to have more coverage in Dutch media. Detlevore (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Conger, Kate (2021-04-13). "'Master,' 'Slave' and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
^ Comment, Sebastian Moss (2022-03-03). "Ukraine invasion brings Internet governance neutrality question into focus". www.datacenterdynamics.com. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
^ "Ukraine invasion: We should consider internet sanctions, says ICANN ex-CEO". Archived from the original on 2025-02-07. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
^ Stokel-Walker, Chris. "What really went down when the internet went down". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
^ "Who owns the internet?". The Face. 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
^ #author.fullName}. "What is Web3 and how will it change the way we use the internet?". New Scientist. Retrieved 2025-05-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Morrison, Sara (2021-09-06). "How a simple email address makes things complicated". Vox. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

Reply from nom - my rationale was that in most of the coverage linked above he is just quoted (i.e. if you ctrl+f his (first/sur)name you find basically 1-2 results). As it doesn't really go in-depth about him specifically, I didn't consider it sigcov. It's very impressive to have your work mentioned in prestigious publications so early in career, I'm just not sure it confers notability. Zzz plant (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof Assistant professors are almost never notable for WP:Prof and this is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - It's too soon for this emerging academic. The low h-index score indicates that they are not notable per WP criteria WP:PROF nor do they meet WP:GNG at this time. Perhaps in a few years after there is more attention to his work and research. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that makes sense! Detlevore (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he would be notable at present. gidonb (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxylabs

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

Poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Noting that some review articles exist about Oxylabs, although they appear to contain multiple affiliate links. The only piece of significant coverage I'm seeing about the company exists in the form of this TechRadar article about a lawsuit.^[1] 30Four (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No RS, no SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It is among the most notable residential proxy providers, along with Luminati. There's quite some technical discussion and brief company description in a book [8] published by O'Reilly Media, which is one of the top publishers in its category. There's also mentions in a lot of papers like [9] or [10], including significant technical discussion involving independent research of its network [11]. Also an in-depth review at PCMag [12]. And the source mentioned in the nomination. In terms of WP:ORGDEPTH, it seems a bit borderline though. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no majr coverage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Every company cannot have their own page, they need to show that they are notable outside of just being a company. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.techradar.com/news/judge-orders-mediation-after-jury-orders-oxylabs-to-pay-dollar75m-in-latest-episode-of-proxy-wars

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 Italian brainrot. ✗plicit 14:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardino Crocodilo

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

Just another internet meme that has very little actual WP:RS coverage. Does not meet any of the WP:WEBCRIT, failing WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let Know Your Meme take care of this stuff – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian brainrot. All of the RS coverage that I can find discusses the character as an example of the broader "Italian brainrot" trend, e.g. this article in Wired. I can't find anything that discusses "Bombardino Crocodilo" itself in any real detail independent of that wider trend. I don't see any reason why this character can't be sufficiently covered within the article Italian brainrot. MCE89 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can totally change it to be more specific, however, I can't reference a lot of that material, as much of it comes from Wiki fandom. The wiki fandom page has been deleted, though, which is why I started working on this. Matthaias Hodges (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MCE89. --Bedivere (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it's spelt "Bombardiro". Bedivere (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I couldn't "move" the file to Wikipedia under that name, so I had to change the title to Bombardino. Kind of Strange Matthaias Hodges (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian brainrot: Not notable on it's own. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. No SIGCOV in RS, only meme, blogs or other minor sites. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. It's not only lacking in significant coverage, it's quickly becoming a fork page. Bearian (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This should also apply to Tung Tung Tung Sahur, Tralalero Tralala, Boneca Ambalabu, and other Italian brainrots. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 07:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The sources do not justify it being notable on its own to justify inclusion but redirecting to Italian Brainrot seems to be the best course of action here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. There is a logical redirect target per WP:ATD, but there isn't WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous replies. :ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian brainrot#Characters: This character can easily be discussed in the main article on the wider Internet meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The article has new sources not present in Italian brainrot, so we should add those.

Thegoofhere (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2025 (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 02:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

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

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything to indicate a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2025 (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 objections from some (mostly newer) editors are not well-grounded in our notability guidelines. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WifiSkeleton

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)

Topic seemingly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Currently, the independent coverage consists of: 1. a tabloid article, 2. an article that relies on the previous article, and 3. an article that cites the subject's fandom page as its source. I did my own search and was unable to find any significant coverage outside of tabloid articles concerning the subject's death. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're only here because you want the article kept (solely bc you like skel) then plz be open minded before you start spewing bs. User:Cyb3rstarz

Comment This AfD is rampant with single-purpose accounts that all want the article kept just because they're supporters of the artist (and all of their posts are equally horribly written). One even runs a fansite devoted to him. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His death is linked up to his discord server, including a stage talk in discord, unfortunately no one has a recording or a youtube video of this stage announcement , i could add images of his closest friends saying stuff, and due to lack of proof, the only things i have/we got is that he overdosed on drugs. MasonCityIowaUser (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — MasonCityIowaUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Miami-Dade County Medical Examiners Case Number 2025-01306 is the examiner report for skel, users were told by gothangelz staff not to post it as it provided his full name, any image of the report posted gets deleted which suggests that it is actually him. 2skate (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — 2skate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This doesn’t matter anyway as it doesn’t establish subject notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Images of his closest friends saying stuff” are not viable sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he said he was going to kill himelf and hasnt been heard from since with people close to him saying hes dead seems pretty viable 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Without legitimate sources it's hearsay. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant ahh Aarnavdave (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — Aarnavdave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you wanna keep the article solely because you like skel then you have no say 🥀, I like skel too but unfortunately I don't think he's notable enough for an article. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Florida, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His music is good but he's definitely not notable enough. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely notable enough now, more monthly listeners than jaydes yet jaydes has his own article. He has a song with over 40 million plays that is currently trending on social media and is number 32 on the charts of most popular songs in the US. 2skate (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% notable enough, i do agree the sources in the article could be better but i do not think it should be deleted personally BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2skate Popularity ≠ notability. Notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources, not how many “plays” something has.

Also, by “charts of most popular songs in the U.S.”, do you mean the most popular songs on Spotify in the U.S.? Wikipedia uses stuff like Billboard charts as sources, not single-platform charts. ApexParagon (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hes notable for killing himself boom done 2skate (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there’d be millions of articles on Wikipedia which simply state “Bob was a plumber. He later killed himself”.

Dying does not make someone notable, alas. Especially if there are no reliable secondary sources reporting the death. ApexParagon (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he had millions of subscribers on yt when he was cyrus and has like 2 million mponthly listners definitley notable enough 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, popularity does not equal notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

man i think the page just needs to stay up lmao it's not that deep BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so why does ricegum have a wikipedia page??? 176.248.180.68 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other things exist. If you don't think that article should stay then you can nominate it for deletion. I would suggest reading the relevant policies about deletion and deletion rational first. Knitsey (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because RiceGum is covered in reliable secondary sources? This ain’t complicated lol ApexParagon (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"popularity does not equal notability." 176.248.180.68 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Cyb3rstarz (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are you blind or just purposefully ignorant X7771 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged the article for notability as there is no viable coverage of his music and only tabloid/news farming sites were reporting his death. Sourcing in the article is trash and he has no notable discography, chart activity nor label work. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. To be frank, he is only currently popular due to having a viral song and because of his death. This doesn't really constitute for a Wikipedia article. Sosumiw (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this course of action given the lack of legitimate sources regarding his death and his barely notable fame. However, one could also easily argue that discarding the page entirely could turn out to be a temporary outcome, he could very well "chart" or garner a rather significant and notable cult following post-mortem in the near future, post-deletion. What then? Deleting may be the most rational decision for now, but you never really know what may happen, so I encourage someone to at the very least archive the page. 2600:4041:DB:8E00:45CB:656C:DF6B:4DC7 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Future event. If that happens then someone can recreate it. We wouldn't usually keep articles based on 'what ifs'. Knitsey (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page can always be recreated or rewritten if that ever does happen. There’s no hope of “losing information” since all the information is supposed to come from other sources anyways. ApexParagon (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if jaydes can be on Wikipedia, so can wifiskeleton. unfair deletion it's just not that deep the guys literally gone, mad disrespectful honestly, just keep it up Drunu (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC) — Drunu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

and I say this not just because, its because how close in numbers they are and in popularity. I'd argue skeleton is even more popular due to him having many names and once being a popular youtuber. Drunu (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAME. He may have been a popular YouTuber, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily notable.

Polaris NC

17:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he is notable for his music and his channel. Drunu (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, it doesn't pass W WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. The tabloid source can easily be replaced but there is little point as the only thing he is notable for is being dead under unclear circumstances. All the other links are pointless (they don't count towards notability (self/user generated). I can't find any coverage that counts towrds notability before his death. Knitsey (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No notable sources, primary or secondary, about him exist before or after his death. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, just as the nominator explains. JFHJr (㊟) 05:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC) JFHJr (㊟) 05:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that if this article is kept, shouldn't it be stylized in lowercase as wifiskeleton and not WifiSkeleton, as Spotify and other music sites like last.fm show?

Polaris NC

15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not snow delete; "...I Already Died" is currently on this week's UK singles chart update and may pass WP:MUSICBIO#C2 on Friday. WP:TNT applies to most of the prose though.--Laun chba ller 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that event, and in light of the problematic BLP editing at this namespace, might it be more practical to TNT it for a redirect to the namespace of the single? That might head off some of the need for protection from BLP edits generally, or at least encourage their restriction to a portion of an article on the single. JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very notable enough to be included in this article. —EnjoyBooms (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC) — EnjoyBooms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One more single-purpose account voting keep without providing a viable reason. It's getting ridiculous at this point. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you still find the sources of this article, such as journals and newspapers? If there so, it might be notable. What defines this person being noteworthy? How could this article be updated in 10 years? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld has an article for this exact reason. If wifiskeleton loses his page then get rid of Eddsworld too 184.146.14.198 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what else? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you provided an argument to me, then I would vote for strong and speedy keep. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If you look at the fansite, there are some information. But I agree with others, he would have been notable. Does the music industry have an impact? 2600:1700:78EA:450:4537:9DB6:C80C:63DD (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UGC, fansites are generally not allowed.

Polaris NC

(they/them) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are not viable sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he impacted the music industry in some way. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2025 (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 without prejudice against renomination at some point down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video

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

BLP mess. At this stage it is impossible for this article to not be a BLP mess. Fails the recommended criteria for events at WP:EVENTCRIT, and at this stage it is WP:TOOSOON to have secondary sourcing. Not notable and as mentioned it is not possible to have this article without it being a BLP disaster. Sources are largely poor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Minnesota. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I think we're actually doing a pretty good job with BLP in the current version of the article. There's nothing in there that isn't directly, materially provable from cited sources. I'm !voting soft keep because it's fairly early to call this notable, even though it has gotten a decent breath of coverage across geographies and has already started to recieve commentary (some of which is noted in the article). It would be much easier to determine whether it passes WP:EVENTCRIT a year from now though, which is why I fall on soft keep. I'd also push back on the claim that the "sources are largely poor", I threw together a SAT and I'm happy with the quality of the sources (I also noted in the location/scope of the cited newspaper to test breadth of coverage).

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
~~https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/online-fundraiser-woman-used-racial-slur-raises-675k-racist-support-rcna204923 (US national news)~~	WP:NBC	✔ Yes
~~https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/woman-racial-slur-relocate-b2744106.html (UK)~~	WP:THEINDEPENDENT	✔ Yes
~~https://archive.ph/Fshn8 (US national news)~~	WP:NBC	✔ Yes
~~https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/viral-video-racial-slur-rochester-playground-backlash/ (Minnesota local news)~~	WP:CBS	✔ Yes
~~https://www.kaaltv.com/news/rochester-naacp-closes-gofundme-after-surpassing-goal/ (Minnesota local news)~~	WP:RSP, ABC news entry	✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20250505002306/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/03/playground-racial-slurs-video-fundraiser/ (Washington, DC)	WP:WAPO	✔ Yes
https://www.newsweek.com/shiloh-hendrix-givesendgo-raises-700k-she-receives-flood-donations-2068603 (NYC-Based, national news)	~ WP:NEWSWEEK	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20250505022142/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/shiloh-hendricks-raises-more-than-591k-after-racist-rant-draws-comparison-to-karmelo-anthony-fundraiser-101746335757923.html (India national news)	~ WP:RSNOI	~ Partial
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shiloh-hendrix-slur-karmelo-anthony-stabbing-maga-b2745949.html (UK news)	WP:THEINDEPENDENT	✔ Yes
https://archive.ph/eMaIF	WP:DAILYWIRE, being used for POV rather than verification.	✘ No
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/white-supremacists-help-raise-hundreds-thousands-woman-who-hurled-slur-black	WP:RSPADL	✔ Yes
https://newrepublic.com/article/194925/shiloh-hendrix-right-ring-fundraising	WP:NEWREPUBLIC	✔ Yes
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/shiloh-hendrix-is-not-a-victim/	~ WP:NATIONALREVIEW	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wasianpower, are these all original reporting? If so, that would make them primary sources. I'd expect to see this situation used as a WP:CASESTUDY for internet racism controversies more broadly if it were notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best article written so far about this incident is, IMO, this article by The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shiloh-hendrix-slur-karmelo-anthony-stabbing-maga-b2745949.html Some1 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, some of them are original reporting, but definitely not all of them (the second independent source for example is firmly secondary, while the local/affiliate sources are the most primary). There are a few "case studies" per se (see the Daily Wire example and examples in the independent), but we're definitely still in the initial round of coverage. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources which could potentially be helpful to establish notability: [13], [14], [15]. I've added them to the SAT and struck and struck primary sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good article by ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/woman-called-black-child-slur-raised-backlash-thousands-121576616 Some1 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this incident and the resulting fundraiser notable--using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's. We've seen thousands, even millions, raised for those accused of murder, but have we ever seen nearly a million dollars raised for a woman who used the N-word against a (reportedly) 5-year old Black autistic child? Some1 (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, not Wikipedia's definition of notable. Plenty of odd things happen. We do not write articles for them unless they pass our guidelines. This does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:NEVENT says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", so I guess it's similar in a way to the dictionary definition?

It's too early to tell if the incident will have WP:LASTING effects, but WP:LASTING also says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." (emphasis mine) One conservative commentator (Matt Walsh, writing for the Daily Wire) said: "How The Shiloh Hendrix Case Killed Cancel Culture" "This is the most devastating attack on cancel culture that we have seen, possibly ever." I don't doubt that people, on either side of the political spectrum, will reference the Shiloh Hendrix case months or even years from now as part of their societal or political commentary. Some sources in wasianpower's table, such as the Independent[16], Daily Wire[17] and New Republic[18], are already analyzing this incident in a way that meets WP:CASESTUDY (though again, this is the initial coverage period).

On the other hand... I do think RSes are taking the person who filmed the incident at face value and are treating his claims as facts. Apparently the Rochester Police Department is sending the results of their investigation into the incident to the city attorney's office for review and potential charges... So the Wikipedia article might be harmful to the woman if some things turned out to be inaccurate. So maybe erring on the safe side and deleting the article might be the better approach? Hard to tell. Some1 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I do not argue for deleting every single new article just because it's new, but there are obviously ones we should and should not make, there are indications. It's not like we can't delete recent articles on events that will obviously not be notable. It's a guessing name to see if this is notable and this is a fairly small scale internet controversy so it is extremely doubtful it will. Sure, I'm guessing that, but by guessing it will that's just the same. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fairly small scale internet controversy That's what I thought this whole thing was when I first read about it this past Sunday, until I saw more RSes reporting on it this week and people debating about it on places such the Piers Morgan show. The article has received 10,222 page views in two days, which is not an insignificant amount. Apparently it's more than what the Elon Musk salute controversy article received when it was created. Some1 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think it was a bigger deal if there was better sourcing than one tolerable piece from the independent. Everything else is local or bad. Well, I don't think that views are a proper comparison there, since I bet most people just went to check the main Musk article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the New Republic piece is also a high-quality source, and the ADL piece is a good analysis. The National Review is not my favorite source, but its piece also decent from the perspective of a case study. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call the ADL piece "good analysis". The New Republic piece is seemingly an opinion piece. I don't even think we can use the National Review as a source (if we can, I did not get the memo, because it would have been very helpful in the past if I could have used that on some articles...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NATIONALREVIEW it's a partisan source which should be attributed but can be used. I also disagree that the TNR piece is an opinion piece; it's tagged as "media criticism" by its RS rather than "opinion", it's an essay using the Hendrix case as a case study in racism in the American political system. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the page views have dropped quite significantly after the initial burst of coverage last week: [19]. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE the last point, I think it's fairly unlikely that the police investigation results in any charges, but only time will tell. Either way though, I think we're pretty good from a BLP perspective in terms of not reporting anything that can't be verified by watching the video. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not a crime, this is an article heavily about a non-public figure BLP and one event. Crime is not the end all be all of BLP issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Hendrix publicly identified herself as the woman in the video, she chose to become a public figure and identify herself with the contents of the video. The only person NPF applies to in the article is Sharmake Omar, and we are being careful in our coverage of him. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure that the video is the specific topic here. I think there are three parts: the incident, the video including reactions to it and the fundraiser. That said, there does seem to be a topic here. The fact that it has had RS coverage outside of the USA proves that this is not just some minor, non-notable or artificial controversy even if it is not (yet?) a truly major one. I don't see the BLP concerns. The woman chose to identify herself and we are not digging into the backgrounds of either of the named people in the article. If there were valid BLP concerns then they seem to be resolved now. The coverage looks reasonably sustained, so far, but it's too early to call it. If the coverage continues then that will push it firmly into "keep" territory. Given the various questions of whether to charge over the incident itself and over the fundraiser, I think this is more likely than not. I expect a lot of awful "think pieces" about whether it is OK to say the N word now/yet. Ugh... --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given that this incident is getting continued coverage in the local media. As far as BLP issues go, I agree with Daniel's point above -- the woman chose to identify herself and continues to stand by her fundraiser. Ugh. I don't like the idea that Minnesota is becoming known for this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:29, 12 May 2025 (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 23:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2204355

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

Limited sources available (Mediate, Time, Salon.com, Daily Mail based on my searching) and only coverage for about a week - no sustained coverage. Don't think it meets GNG. Upjav (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Time, Salon and Daily Mail are all the sourcing I can find. Only Time is a RS... Rest are iffy or non-RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear lack of WP:SIGCOV, no sources covering this past 2010. And even the TIME source doesn't have any detail past "When you search that this shows up" ApexParagon (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only two sources here. I wonder why this was included in the first place. Seems rather random. Only significantly covered memes are generally included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed that it does not meet WP:GNG --TonySt (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:31, 14 May 2025 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple emoji

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

I don't see any Sigcov per BEFORE, only the ref #6 source and the weak source like Bustle, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could perhaps be a brief mention in an emoji article, but most of what i find is trivia [20] or random mentions online. I don't see enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~How about the ref #6, isn't it a full article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: and what is there (including ref 6) can be incorporated into other articles, eg ref 6 is more about the symbolism of pineapples and could be added to the article on pineapple. --hroest 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major author of the article: Source analysis has not been properly conducted. The comment that Bustle is "weak" is not substantiated by why this would be so. The article is equivalent of around 16 Column inches devoted to this subject alone. There was not any attempt to address dictionary.com which is a solid source, used in hundreds of articles. Even the nom seems to admit that source #6, at Jane Austen Society of North America, is a full article about this subject, and the presence of "emoji" in the article title tells us that it is not about the fruit, but the symbol. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary as a source is not a secondary and would not count to notability. Ref #6 is mixed since it also talked about the pineapple itself, not only the emoji. Bustle is weak when you check that source since the article is mentioning all the fruits, not only pineapple emoji (You really thought because of the headline title). When I checked the body of the article, it only says about pineapple emoji is "especially when you can post a bunch of pineapple emojis to your Snapchat story to get people scratching their heads instead." Yeah, Bustle and ref#6 is not enough, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's wide academic coverage of the Pineapple emoji use in Jane Austen adaptations [21][22][23][24][25][26]. There's brief coverage about its use as a synonym for weed. I would also support a merge to a section Pineapple#Symbolism if someone was up to write it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found something else it is notable for and put it on the page. Specifically, that it is a symbol used by swingers to indicate to other swingers that they are open to that activity. Additionally, there are sources that bolster this use like Cosmopolitan^[1] and The Telegraph.^[2] Therefore, I think at this point it meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and warrants inclusion. I am sure there are other sources that support the swinger notion, I just did a quick look. Apparently that is its most popular usage. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources has zero mention about Pineapple emoji. You might did some "quick look", but you didn't checked properly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to fix that for redirect 2607:FEA8:3360:7600:CF58:1498:256F:1F37 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the 3 above Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is not a vote young guy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. None of the arguments made in favor of keeping the article cited any relevant policy or guideline. ✗plicit 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Kruger

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this page is worthy of deletion - this is someone who has decades of relevant experience ARealWorm (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm curious to know why you don't think this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia- they have decades worth of relevant experience and engagement in the Australian industry and are now head of the Media Diversity Australia ARealWorm (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not meeting notability due to a lack of independent sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is the only independent sourcing about this person. I don't find any other articles that could be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it's close. I agree that source 5 is the best source, and it's an article largely focused on the subject that was published in one of Australia's newspapers of record. But source 4 is also independent, significant coverage in a very reputable newspaper. I think you could easily make the case that those two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. But both are very similar routine staffing announcements (one says she is joining ABC Radio Canberra, the other says she is now leaving), and feature a very high volume of quotes. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I don't think I really see the necessary depth in those two sources to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - however there are more sources there now - please review ARealWorm (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like any edits have been made to the article since I left my comment here. What additional sources are you referring to? MCE89 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally unharmful to have an article Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think it shows what she is notable for. It just reads like a resume. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2025 (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 Marie Lu. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzz Academy

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

Can't find a lick of reliable secondary coverage apart from a one sentence in an NPR profile of the creator, a successful author. I've added mention to the creator's biography based on that source. This can go. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marie Lu, where nom added a cited mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this page should be deleted. The creator’s Deviant Art Account has information about the site, under the username “mree”. There is little record of Fuzz Academy beyond their art uploads and commentary about the game in their posts. One day there may be even less record of it’s existence, save for a little stubby Wikipedia article - but at least it won’t become entirely lost media. Some of us still hold these forgotten, defunct games in our hearts, and to lose record of their existence is a saddening thought. 173.184.50.33 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should copy this article, with attribution, to an appropriate wiki related to video games or internet culture or something like that. You can also just save it and republish it (with attribution) on a blog, or as a Reddit post, or something. But to be included on Wikipedia, reliable sources need to demonstrate a topic’s notability, and Fuzz Academy does not meet this standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was briefly active a decade ago, then nothing mentioned since. A reddit sub and some trademark registrations are about all I pull up, nothing notable about the website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is poor and notability is not established. Reads like an advertisement. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sourcing and non-existent plausible sigcov. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2025 (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. There is a consensus to keep with the notability guidelines fulfilled and the nomination was also withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [27] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
Ref 2 [28] Secondary source.
Ref 3 [29] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
Ref 4 [30] CV. Not independent.
Ref 5 Non-rs
Ref 6 [31] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
Ref 7 [32] Another passing mention.
Ref 8 [33] Passing mention.
Ref 9 [34] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [35] Not independent.
Ref 11 404
Ref 12 [36] The docket. Non-rs
Ref 13 [37] Not independent.
Ref 14 [38] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there's enough collectively to make the Keep grade. Looking in Google Newspapers archive the other day, there's some good usable stuff too. I can see that there was a good past attempt to make a decent article here, but it's set up wrong and some parts need to be re-written. That being said, I believe this has the making of a very good article. It just needs work. Because this is a legal-related article, it's a bit harder and for me it's a more involved kind of thing which I wish I had time for. Karl Twist (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy free keep !vote. Do you have WP:THREE good references that prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the quality of the sources has been challenged, if you're !voting "meets WP:GNG", it would be helpful if you pointed at the best sources and explained why they're sufficient. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In its current form, as I am reading the article, I agree that the sources could be cleaned up and that there is a lot that contributes more to verifiability than significance. That said, the Washingtonian source, combined with sufficient academic and legal analysis of his work available online (for example, by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other references in the current article), dissuades me from believing it is not noteworthy. Many cases that he has represented (and are cited here) are notable, and while that needs to be discounted for his passing mention, there are many of those examples that do end up adding up. WeWake (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked two attorney's on Wikipedia for a view for a clearer consensus. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to an attorney. He thinks the subject is notable and he gave me a very good reason why he thinks the subject is notable, which has cleared the way for me. I suspect the article will be full of references from obits when the man dies. Time waits for all folk on Wikipedia. Nomination Withdrawn as keep scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:—appreciate the extra fact-finding. I am wondering if you might be inclined to share what you discovered, whether aspects originally missed or not covered in these discussions, that motivated the withdrawal. Cheers! WeWake (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the vast majority of sources are reliable sources. A few references can be cut out, but overall the subject has significant coverage. While it's not policy and just my personal opinion, he passes my standards, because he's done enough for the legal community. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (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. Discussions are closed on the quality of the comments, not the number, and too many of the "keep" comments gave arguments to avoid, particularly it's useful / important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

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

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes an award won by the app. It seems strange to me that this is nominated for deletion, even in light of the arguments made above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any suitable sources (meeting WP:NCORP) for either the app or the parent company unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are all kinds of minor products on wikipedia. Documenting tech history is part of what we use wikipedia for. ShipRush2 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated: "It was rated among the leading parental control apps of 2025 and cited as “best for blocking explicit content." Ovedc (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why delete an article that is well-rounded and provides sourced information about a product that many parents are looking for? Citadelian (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citadelian, I recommend you gain more experience for how it's determined whether or not article subjects have notability before weighing in on any more AFD discussions. The fact that someone out there might find an article helpful at some future time does not influence whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- agree with Turquoise in that there's a hypothetical version of this article which could exist. That hypothetical version is very far removed from what we have now. Current article is written like an advertisement or press release and mostly sources other advertisements, press releases, and SEO spam blog posts. --TonySt (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parental_controls#Parental_controls_on_mobile_devices. I think that there is not much significant coverage on this app. And notability is iffy for a stand alone article. It can be mentioned in the redirect section if anything is worth salvaging. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes. Not sure why this is nominated for deletion. Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2025 (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] Zhou, Renjie; Khemmarat, Samamon; Gao, Lixin (2010-11-01). "The impact of YouTube recommendation system on video views". Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement. IMC '10. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 404–410. doi:10.1145/1879141.1879193. ISBN 978-1-4503-0483-2.

[2] Ding, Jingtao; Yu, Guanghui; He, Xiangnan; Quan, Yuhan; Li, Yong; Chua, Tat-Seng; Jin, Depeng; Yu, Jiajie (2018). "Improving Implicit Recommender Systems with View Data". International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 3343–3349.

[3] Jannach, Dietmar; Lerche, Lukas; Zanker, Markus (2018), Brusilovsky, Peter; He, Daqing (eds.), "Recommending Based on Implicit Feedback", Social Information Access: Systems and Technologies, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 510–569, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90092-6_14, ISBN 978-3-319-90092-6, retrieved 2025-05-20

[4] Goray, Cami; Schoenebeck, Sarita (2022-11-11). "Youths' Perceptions of Data Collection in Online Advertising and Social Media". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6 (CSCW2): 475:1–475:27. doi:10.1145/3555576.

[5] Conger, Kate (2021-04-13). "'Master,' 'Slave' and the Fight Over Offensive Terms in Computing". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[6] Comment, Sebastian Moss (2022-03-03). "Ukraine invasion brings Internet governance neutrality question into focus". www.datacenterdynamics.com. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[7] "Ukraine invasion: We should consider internet sanctions, says ICANN ex-CEO". Archived from the original on 2025-02-07. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[8] Stokel-Walker, Chris. "What really went down when the internet went down". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[9] "Who owns the internet?". The Face. 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[10] #author.fullName}. "What is Web3 and how will it change the way we use the internet?". New Scientist. Retrieved 2025-05-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[11] Morrison, Sara (2021-09-06). "How a simple email address makes things complicated". Vox. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

[12] ttps://www.techradar.com/news/judge-orders-mediation-after-jury-orders-oxylabs-to-pay-dollar75m-in-latest-episode-of-proxy-wars

[13] ttps://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a60459870/upside-down-pineapple-meaning/

[14] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/30/upside-down-pineapples-secret-symbol-spain-mercadona-stores/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]