Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

Ilyas El Maliki

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

Previously deleted article via WP:AFD in March and nothing has changed since then. The nomination statement in the first AFD and comments therein remain valid. Mekomo (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion
This article substantially improves upon the previously deleted version by adding verifiable, independent sources demonstrating Ilyas El Maliki’s notability per WP:GNG:
  1. Global Digital Influence: Ranked by Dexerto as the 12th-largest Kick streamer worldwide and Africa’s #1.
  2. International Sports Role: Official chairman of Morocco’s national team at the Kings World Cup 2024, (Video of the game on Kings League's channel), with repeat invitation for 2025 alongside stars like Lamine Yamal.
Addressing Systemic Bias
While I respect Wikipedia’s deletion processes, I must note the recurring difficulty in establishing notability for clearly significant figures from Morocco and the broader MENA region. Despite providing verifiable, independent sources (including industry rankings and international tournament participation), articles like this face disproportionate scrutiny compared to Western counterparts with similar or lesser achievements.
I urge editors to consider whether this reflects unconscious bias rather than policy compliance. Improve articles, not deleting them, should always be the first option. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete per previous AfD, little change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contesting Deletion
the original article of the subject got deleted because claimed "No real sign of notability", I list a number of sources proving that the subject is indeed notable:
- International Tournament Participation: Kings League World Cup 2025.
- Top 15 Streamers Worldwide: ranked at 12.
- Massive coverage by Moroccan press both in English (more), and Arabic.
if all these still don't make the subject notable, then sure go ahead and delete. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
just to add one more thing (a fact and a message):
The first 3 months of 2023, the subject of this article was the most streamed gamer on YouTube, surpassing IShowSpeed, all this achieved through a dialect (Darija) spoken by about 40 million people, not a major language (English spoken by over 2 billion people). But somehow he is not notable!
It's really demotivating to continue contributing to Wikipedia against all these (unconscious) biases. This is not an accusation, it's studied and proved, "Reliability of Wikipedia". We come here with good intention to contribute, but seems like not on English Wikipedia, unfortunately. El Maliki is literally the biggest streamer in all of Africa according to all reliable sources included (like Dexerto).
respectfully, ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (still new here, I just learnt that this is the right term)!
so, since these discussions are NOT VOTES, then it should be that if 1 editor is able to present sufficient RSs on the subject, it won't matter how many spam "speedy delete"
Allow me to list an organized number of RSs testifying to the notability of the subject of this article:
  1. The most watched streaming gamer of the first quarter of 2023 (surpassing IShowSpeed), Dexerto & SVG.
  2. The 6th highest peak viewed stream on Kick's history (Surpassing Adin Ross, he literally had a stream with President Trump while running for office, still got surpassed by a guy speaking a dialect of 40 million people), Dexerto.
  3. 12th biggest streamer worldwide, Dexerto.
  4. His Ultra was the first team selected for the 2025 Kings World Cup Club, the official and sole chairman of the Kingdom of Morocco on a world-class international competition, Kings League Pro.
  5. His life largely covered by multiple RS in different languages: UAE's Al Mashhad, Morocco's most popular press outlets and most RSs: MWN, L'Opinion, Hespress, Le360, and much more.
It's not that difficult to look up stuff on Google. Best ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to have a discussion and evaluation of above sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the above sources were highlighted in the previous deletion discussion and practically all of it was deemed not suitable enough to establish notability beyond mere shallow coverage of his criminal record. See WP:SIGCOV. λ NegativeMP1 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the previous deletion discussion was disappointing doesn't mean this one has to be too!
    Let's discuss the above sources and why they don't establish the subject's notability. (Btw, non of the sources above cover his criminal record but rather his achievements as a streamer and his role as a chairman of Morocco in the Kings World Cup). Rap no Davinci (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end, Ideophagous provided a 2023 article from Al-Quds Al-Arabi on a Quran related controversy. But we cannot base an article entirely on controversy. IgelRM (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply there is a reason why we're having a second discussion!
    the source from Al-Quds Al-Arabi you mentioned is not listed in the sources above nor it's included in the current article, so it really has nothing to do with our discussion here.
    The sources above are L'Opinion, Hespress, Al-Mashhad, Morocco World News, and Kings Leagues official website, all covering his role as a chairman of Morocco + Dexerto writing about his achievements as the biggest streamer in Africa.
    All these sources together (plus more) is enough to establish the subject's notability as an online streamer and media personality. Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article cites several sources considered reliable in Morocco and the Arab world. Most of them focus on his streaming career rather than past legal issues. WikiEdWoq (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think some source analysis by uninvolved editors could be helpful here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4 and salt. Questionable sigcov and this was settled in favor of delete only to be recreated. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply G4: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies."
    The current page is not substantially identical to the deleted version (as determined by an admin, see reason of his decline of CSD ) and about 50% of the sources listed weren't used/discussed before! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made my case in the last deletion discussion, please read my arguments for keeping the article there.--Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: per G4. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, there are 42 refs listed in the article, at least half of them were never used in the previous deletion discussion, yet not one editor bothered to check them out and explain to us here why they don't establish notability of the individual. Writing "speedy delete" is quite pointless considering that it got declined before, and the current article address the reasons for which the previous one got deleted.
    Almost all major Moroccan media wrote about him in Arabic, French and English as well as other sources from overseas.
    Still hoping to have an actual discussion! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Andrew Poole

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the sources is a press release, another is some random Flash presentation (which I have no idea if it is reliable or not), another is a 2 sentence mention in an article about a movie, and the HarperCollins profile seems to be a primary source that does not establish notability. (I’m pretty sure every author under that publishing company has a profile on there, and the author gets to write the blurb that goes on it.) Tried looking for other sources but the only other ones I could find were primary. ApexParagon (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Amazing job finding those sources. I added them to the page and removed the GNG tag. He might still need some BLP sources for life facts idk. Moritoriko (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator withdrew their nomination and closed this discussion but that shouldn't have happened as we have an editor making a Deletion argument. This needs to be officially closed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 22 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.

TruVista Communications

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG ProtobowlAddict talk! 02:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT (regardless of what name it was at the time), then it would meet NCORP. Makes sense that it had numerous name changes since there really isn't anything out there under the current name. I would be happy to change my vote if you can provide the links. I do not have access to ProQuest unfortunately though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CNMall41, you should be able to access all three ProQuest links via The Wikipedia Library. Anyhow, the first one is a passing mention if I've ever seen one. The second link is the company's About Us page, which is interesting but not reliable or independent sigcov. The third is a piece in a trade publication; I'm not certain if it is fully independent or counts as sigcov, but I'll say it's good enough. The fourth is a short, routine report of this company being purchased by another one. So, being very generous, we have one, maybe 1.5 sources that count towards NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Searching Newspapers.com, it seems that, as one might expect, they have lots of local news coverage: [5][6][7][8] There's plenty more; this search [9] has over 1,500 results, some of which are ads, press releases, and legal notices, but some of which are real coverage. @Protobowladdict and @CNMall41, do you have thoughts on these sources? Toadspike [Talk] 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Is there a source that ties the name change? I'd even be willing to do the WP:HEY if there is. The other questions is whether this should be a past tense since TruVista now operates independently according to the sourcing from A.B. I do not think TruVista would be independently notable since it is no longer the same company. But, correct me if I am wrong. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 30 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 06:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the article is about the company so WP:PRODUCT doesn't apply. That said - if the article was changed to focus on the eSim service, those reviews would count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find product reviews for the eSIMs. Sure it technically qualifies under WP:PRODUCT, but I could not find a single source that describes anything about the company or history of the product, so there isn't really any way to make an sourced article that is not an WP:PROMO. Jumpytoo Talk 08:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet challenges#Crime. The policy-based consensus is that the topic is not currently notable for a stand alone article. Preserving a redirect will allow for easy recreation if the event does prove to have lasting coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chromebook challenge

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

WP:NOTNEWS Launchballer 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just want to cite WP:FAME real quick.
But notability is not temporary. What this means is that once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, but brief coverage that ceases quickly may not render a subject notable.
Now, this depends on what you define as "brief coverage", but I personally think of it as 3-7 days. I could find coverage of this trend from 3 weeks ago, which is way more than most memes last until they die nowadays. Articles on the subject are still being made, and 2 people have arrested because of it, so it's more unlikely to die out by this time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's an article that abides by Wikipedia rules. Thegoofhere (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the challenge has caused a major safety scare across the country, [13] with 3 people confirmed to be hospitalized due to concerns of smoke inhalation. [14]. You can go to the responses section and see all of the recorded incidents we have. Thegoofhere (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Users cite WP:NEVENT even though it literally only strengthens the case for this article's existence. Ironic how people cite the policy here but never say the Chromebook Challenge isn't historically significant. Y'all are literally treating this trend like its just a fad and totally didn't cause evacuations, lectures, panics, hospitalizations, and articles from notable news sources. Thegoofhere (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, I want everyone, including any closing mods, to remember WP:ATD exists. Deletion or keeping the article is not the only option, as later replies have shown. Also, Brexit

Thegoofhere (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanch, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to give a reason in your nomination. Ameright?
Also, comitting arson for Tiktok views would still probably be a talking point (but more minor) in 7 months. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it still is, as of now. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence this flash in the pan social media fad passes WP:NEVENT; we would need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And WP:NOTNEWS, while not effusive, is a valid deletion rationale since WP:NOT is the second part of the two-part WP:GNG test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree buddy: There is evidence that it passes WP:NEVENT. I quote it for ya.
    "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact"
    It has national impact, many American schools have put out messages stating that students must stop doing the trend. Sources from the article show that incidents of the trend have recorded in 15 US states. Plus, a student was charged for arson whilst participating in the challenge. [15][16] You hear that? A charge of ARSON.
    It's a trend that promoted crime, has garnered attention from firefighters and schools, covered in various news sources, is popular even after a week, destroyed property, and led to an arrest.
    Yeeessss, very unotable.ಠ_ಠ Thegoofhere (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just keep it on bro 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
istg there are undocumented terrorists out there and your worried about some stupid article of a true challenge 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the sky is blue. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whataboutism 165.140.214.242 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing to do with the discussion, there is no point keeping this article on a very likely short-lived fad. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anon wasn't talking to you, nor disagreeing with you. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, let's keep the discussion on track. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

couple months then it can be deleted and i doubt it will "die down" after getting covered by the biggest reliable source of wikipedia,The New York Times and based on the page views and Google Search Trend which shows over 100 searches and the related searches are "TikTok Challenge" and for the page views and its getting 28 views per a day because its getting AfD'ed, one of the biggest TikTok challenges blowing up right now and people are confused and don't know what it is because its getting AfD'ed. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Also, its still getting coverage. Most memes die within like, 2 days. To even pass 1 week proves its a noteworthy subject, even if it's not as popular after a couple of days. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it's been long enough for most independent articles about the challenge to be secondary Thegoofhere (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion has majority arguments with consensus for delete including per WP:TOOSOON. Whereas, considering latest comments, a call for consensus on whether it should be deleted or be merged, redirected/other per WP:ATD with or without any long-term impact considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:43, 21 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! 23:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byel

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

Was 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..

See also . * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 13 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]
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

List of Anime with Alvin episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Basics with Babish episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two 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]

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]
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

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

Non-notable TikToker. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 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 redirect‎ to Social media measurement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Views (social media)

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

I 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]

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

  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.
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

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

After 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]

Comment: The Norwegian National Library's newspaper archives have 84 results for "Xait" after 2000 [17]. 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

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

Fails WP:GNG zero independent reliable sources and conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 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 merge‎ to Zendaya. ✗plicit 11:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zendaya's Hat Theory

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

Fails WP: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]

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

Non-notable 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]

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]
  • 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]
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]
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

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

This is 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]

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.— DandoriD (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.— DandoriD (talk) 07:04, 14 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.
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.— DandoriD (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. — DandoriD (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. — DandoriD (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. 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

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 05:59, 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]
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

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

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]

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:54, 28 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_creepTalk 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]
Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets look at the references:
  • Ref 1 [24] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [25] Secondary source.
  • Ref 3 [26] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 4 [27] CV. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 Non-rs
  • Ref 6 [28] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
  • Ref 7 [29] Another passing mention.
  • Ref 8 [30] Passing mention.
  • Ref 9 [31] Passing mention.
  • Ref 10 [32] Not independent.
  • Ref 11 404
  • Ref 12 [33] The docket. Non-rs
  • Ref 13 [34] Not independent.
  • Ref 14 [35] 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Other XfDs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1290791632"