Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

Book Bucket Challenge

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

WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge

AfDs for this article:

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

After looking at BEFoRe, sources mostly shows only from the same year 2016 and there is no other reliable source from other year. This is a case of WP:NEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think WP:LASTING is not met here. Weak delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but I am on the fence about that. The meme pretty much disappeared after the calendar flipped to 2017, and in 2016 where literally every person on the internet was talking about the "Mannequin Challenge". The coverage of the meme in the news and RS is almost unlimited. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Legacy" section shows some sort of an impact... It was still brought up during the pandemic [1], so it's not entirely forgotten. How often does a meme get discussed in peer-reviewed journals? I think that alone shows impact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Mannequin Challenge dataset is a thing. [2], being used by scientists as late as 2020. That's more legacy than the Chromebook Challenge has at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chromebook challenge is a revival of the Devious lick challenge. Nothing new ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skullbreaker challenge

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

Not independently notable after looking at BEFoRe. WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to clear faliure of WP:LASTING, whether or not it was even notable enough at the time. I cannot find any sources suggesting its long-term notability, impact, or influence. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Condom challenge

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

After it went viral at 2018, the meme was almost immediately forgotten. WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Stunts where it is listed as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above: seems fine, this is the Chromebook challenge of a few years ago, it won't be (and isn't) remembered much past the 15 minutes of fame it got... Interesting bit of internet lore, but not independently notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Baccielo

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

Baccielo played a single season of third division soccer before retiring, and his YouTube channel seems more notable than his playing career, but still not worthy of an article. Orange County was a third division team in 2016. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Football, California, and Connecticut. Raskuly (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSPORT. The YouTube channel was far from noteworthy anyway. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played since 2016. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke (warez)

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG, appears to be largely original research and can be succinctly explained in the warez article without the extensive technical detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Crime, Entertainment, Computing, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warez scene as an WP:ATD-R - It seems like the relevant content is already there without the need to merge content. The rest of what is in this article is more of a how-to or example list (or even unrelated content relevant to releases, but not necessarily nuking, from what I gather reading this). -2pou (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk tuah

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. A brief burst of media coverage about an internet meme is not sufficient for "enduring notability". MrTaxes (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Tennessee. MrTaxes (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously nominated in 2024, with the result being "Keep". Note that the article title at the time was "Haliey Welch"; the AFD is unrelated to the current Haliey Welch article, was later split. 162 etc. (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying.

Do you think a merge into the current Hailey Welch article be appropriate? She seems to clearly meet notability guidelines, and a random internet meme that was covered for a few days might be notable enough to be a paragraph in her article. MrTaxes (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is beating a dead horse / repeated failed proposal spamming. A merge was just discussed for months with no consensus at Talk:Haliey_Welch#Proposed_merge. —Lowellian (reply) 00:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid reason provided for deletion, article is well-sourced and claims about WP:NOTNEWS and notability are easily dismissed with sources in existing article. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources in the article are about Haliey Welch, and the meme is incidental to the article's topic. The article should, at best, be merged with the existing Haliey Welch article. MrTaxes (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They're still talking about the thing in 2025 [3], although I could see this getting merged into the article about Hailey Welch itself. I'm not sure we can really talk about the girl, the meme and the backlash in different articles, but it's still notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep duh. Hannis Biotechnology Inc (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Enduring notability" means significant past coverage over a period of time in reliable sources, which this has, and doesn't mean it has to be covered every day in the present (and, in fact, that argument wouldn't even work, since this meme continues to be morphed and passed around on the Internet to the present day). By nominator's interpretation of no "enduring notability", most historical events would also be deleted; when was the last time, to use a random example, you heard the Battle of Tagliacozzo mentioned in present day conversation or news? Doesn't mean the event doesn't have enduring notability. —Lowellian (reply) 00:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article is obviously notable and anyone who even so much as glanced at the AfD rules could see that. Merge discussions should be discussed on the article talk page, not AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: A quick google search shows that Hawk Tuah is still in the news after a year.

Thegoofhere (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enduring notability, even now. jolielover♥talk 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like a case of Long Covid, this meme won't go away. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R/changemyview

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

WP:SIGCOV, no sources address "the topic directly and in detail". Also WP:SBST, since there is little more than routine journalism discussing the topic. MrTaxes (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MrTaxes (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article. The first three cited sources are NPR, Wired, and BBC, all of which address "the topic directly and in detail". Other sources do as well. What is the shortcoming? This passes GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other subreddits with significantly more notability, like the Boston Marathon Bombing subreddit, do not have their own pages. R/changemyview has extremely limited media coverage, and it should, at best, be a paragraph in Reddit.

I'm fine with including subreddits with significant media coverage, like the Herman Cain Award, but there needs to be a line somewhere so we don't just arbitrarily include certain subreddits that happen to have a few articles about them. MrTaxes (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrTaxes: I will talk it through with you.

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Whether this topic can be included in Wikipedia is unrelated to its relationship with reddit. This topic requires its own media coverage to get an article.

This topic does have its own media coverage, and it has a lot. While passing WP:GNG only requires 2 good citations, I shared 3 above, and I personally feel that 10 of the 11 sources cited are significant coverage of this particular forum, all independent of coverage of reddit as the more general concept.

You said that the media coverage is limited. I cannot cite this, but the general knowledge is that half of Wikipedia articles have 10 citations, while the other half have fewer than 10. That puts this article at the median, so it is not on the fringe.

Finally, the parent article reddit does not mention this topic nor does it link to it. At most I think the parent article should link to this one. Your suggestion of adding a paragraph would be WP:UNDUE because there is no need to discuss this topic to understand the concept of reddit.

Thanks for making the nomination and calling for review. I respect the discussion, but see the material as worth keeping. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how a subreddit covered by multiple reliable sources including scholarly ones (2 more I found: [4] [5]) would fail WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Jumpytoo Talk 01:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep With several news articles, it is clearly notable. Nominator seems WP:NOTHERE with several AfD noms of articles that are indisputably notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like Tax didn't review the sources himself. Source by Wired is dedicated to CMV, BBC, and Slate too. Plus, not "routine" or mundane news TheGoofWasHere (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonia

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The PC World Philippines article is a solid example of SIGCOV, but I could otherwise only find trivial mentions. And yes, I did use Wayback Machine to check all of the digital and scanned magazine articles that were hosted on Abandonia and mentioned in the previous AfD - they are almost entirely trivial in nature. The previous AfD was otherwise WP:VOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to abandonware, though will need significant trimming to like a paragraph at most. Masem (t) 19:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is virtually no independent coverage of Abandonia. Merging with Abandonware and trimming would also be totally acceptable to me, as Masem suggested. MrTaxes (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the source noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ in their nomination, "Halcyon and on and on: an exploratory study of online collections of computer games" (2023) in Digital Transformation and Society discusses Abandonia in a non-trivial way. /Julle (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would debate that. Its usage seems fairly trivial, one of many similar sites used as a comparison in the study. There is no indication it was singled out as important or that it got a very long and indepth examination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Carpenter

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and not found sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Texas. Tacyarg (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, Advertising, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability for an actor. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María José Estupiñán Sánchez

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that indicating any inherent notability. The facts in the article are sourced, but only because of details of her life being reported in the stories about her death. The death itself has been covered in many sources, but I am unable to determine if all of these different citations are truly WP:SIGCOV or just outlets retelling basically the same story (syndicated, chasing clicks, etc?). I don't think our notability guidelines suggest that every killing that happens to make the papers the next day are notable. This only happened a few weeks ago so hard to establish any long-term impact. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Duran) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Encyclopedic in the same way as Valeria Márquez. Encyclopedic as an emerging influencer, entrepreneur. The same sources on the latter's page (Valeria Márquez) were written after her death. María José Estupiñán Sànchez presents, as visible, a much broader entrepreneurial history than Marquez. A case of femicide that turned out to be very covered by the media in an international way, an emerging character like others before her who are present here on the platform. Submitting a deletion request for the article after a few hours of its creation is disrespectful to say the least.-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFF is important to remember, I'd suggest that Valeria Márquez (influencer)'s death received broader notice due to it being live-streamed and coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no excuse to judge her more encyclopedic than Estupiñán. As you can see, María José's career is much more documented and longer than Marquez's and I don't think the fact that she died live makes her more encyclopedic than the other. María José's death was also partly caught on camera, but this reasoning and justification make no sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having a hard time following your arguement, but please remember this isn't a comparative exercise. Either the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez meets our notability guilelines or it doesn't. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let me tell you that it follows all the rules. And also the reason why you asked for the deletion of the page makes no sense nor the justification you gave about being killed live. These are not valid reasons nor should they be taken into consideration. Marquez's being killed live does not detract from being killed, partially filmed by Estupiñán's cameras. That makes no sense and is not a justification. I believe that one is encyclopedic regardless of the way one is killed, and the fact that one girl was killed live is not a justification to diminish the encyclopedicity of the other, nor to justify that of the first. Instead of resorting to these page deletions, which somehow diminish the work of those who deal with these things, just insert a notice of "source needed" or look for these extra sources, avoiding resorting to these drastic and (at least on this page) very inappropriate and meaningless methods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person appears to have had no coverage before the death... Not that I can find. There is lots of discussion around the death itself, that might be an article. The person appears non-notable before passing away. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Maybe change the title to "death of María José Estupiñán Sànchez" as the author of the deletion process did with Valeria Márquez who is in the same situation as her. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez".
María José Estupiñán Sànchez → Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this title change instead of unnecessary deletion of the page:

Valeria Márquez was a social media influencer, and entrepreneur. She collaborated with brands. I think you are wrong in stating that she is more encyclopedic because she died live.
María José Estupiñán Sànchez was a social media influencer at the same way, and entrepreneur. Unlike Marquez, he owned 3 businesses, not just 1. She also collaborated with brands as Marquez. Her death was partially filmed, since you apparently base your beliefs partly on this. The moment of death does not determine its encyclopedicity, but indeed Estupiñán's page is much more compact and with more information than Marquez's. Given the situation, a title change is fairer, as is being done with Marquez herself who is in the same situation as her, even if for her there was no talk of elimination, but of title change, which here was not even taken into consideration before asking for deletion, in fact not caring about the contributions of those who created the page in question, or this one. So I am for title change and not elimination. If you delete this, then you also delete that of Marquez, because they are in the same situation.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation of the page and the unwillingness to cooperate from those who asked for the deletion of the page, I ask for a WP:3O, so that it is visible to everyone that the page Valeria Márquez has nothing more than this one, and that the deletion is incorrect, and it would be fairer to change the title to "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez". Let's see what the difference between these two influences would be. Both entrepreneurs (she from three businesses, Marquez 1, both influencers, both content creators, both with ties to brands and promotions, both models and emerging artists. The only difference is that one died online in front of so many people, the other is partially dead in front of so many people, you can't see the exact moment. Thanks. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting here (seeking a third opinion) is inappropriate. This is an ongoing WP:AFD discussion that follows a particular process. I suggest you read through that page to get a better understanding. Further, this particular discussion is about the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez; discussion of other articles belong elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your motivation for deleting the article and the fact that you don't understand that there is no difference with the article on Marquez and the fact that you evidently don't care about contributing adequately are useless, inappropriate and futile reasons. The request for elimination itself is useless, it makes no sense to have proposed it when the article on Marquez is here. The fact that we have asked for a meaningless deletion when there is an IDENTICAL page is shameful. Unfortunately, I am forced to talk about Marquez because it is the only way to make people understand the uselessness of this discussion. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you submitted the request for elimination without considering anyone else and without thinking of less drastic solutions. This says a lot about respect for others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:AGF, and don't tread into WP:NPA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking for deletion, it is checked. And the request is useless as long as there are articles like Marquez's. So yes, it is not a legitimate nor correct elimination. Name change is correct and your reasons are very unfollowable and arguable. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, ~~nine~~ (now) ten of your comments here have compared this article to the one about Marquez. Comments at AfD should address the article under discussion, not compare it to other articles. All that matters here is whether the Sanchez article meets our notability criteria. Whether the article is similar to Marquez's article is irrelevant. Perhaps the Marquez article should be deleted too. Continuing to harp on the Marquez article just weakens your case, as it may suggest to people evaluating this discussion that the article does not satisfy notability, and arguments based on analogy with other articles are all that you can come up with.

I would also agree with ZimZalaBim that your comments here are unnecessarily hostile and personalized. Discuss the article under discussion, and do not speculate on the motives of other editors. Everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if they disagree with you. CodeTalker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question justifies the presence of one article on another without providing adequate explanations and without having consulted anyone. The same person has no interest in improving the article and the same person treats me as IGNORANT by continuing to report rules and apparent laws, this is a very inappropriate behavior. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I talk so much about Marquez, it is because the user in question justified the presence of her article by talking about the way she died. This is not a motivation and the guidelines establish it, and the same person has always been pointed out by other users that his ways are not right or correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't know how to argue without citing rules says a lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this explains a lot of how you react - this isn't about arguing, but about properly applying our WP:POLICIES. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are evidently not able to follow given the inappropriate, useless request for deletion when you yourself justified the presence of Marquez's article as having been killed live, which is irrelevant. I think I will pursue the request for a name change, given the inability to guarantee adequate explanations. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this is clearly a BLP1E case. The subject has no notability apart from her murder. The murder itself has some coverage and may warrant an article, although only about 1/3 of the current article is about the murder so it would require some restructuring. Almost all of the sources are in Spanish which I am not qualified to evaluate, so I won't offer a firm opinion on whether an article about the murder is warranted. (Also two of the five English sources are unreliable.) CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles on Wikipedia that mainly talk about murder cases but have a section on the subject's biography, although it is not the main focus. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I added some other English sources that I think are reliable and good. Obviously I didn't add all the sources, but internet is literally full of news regarding Estupiñán Sànchez. I added the statement by Human Rights Watch and news-related as I think are reliable and important for the article. Personally I think her notoriety cames from this. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Creating Killing of María José Estupiñán per COMMONNAME, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of María José Estupiñán, as it is the (horrific) event that is notable and got widespread media coverage as well as global condemnation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doral Voice

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

One of a series of promotional spam articles written by a WP:SPA using blatantly phony sources. CSD declined. JTtheOG (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the cited sources is a domain name currently for sale, which is a bad sign for such a recently created article. Only one of the sources cited could possibly have significant coverage from an independent source, but the link does not lead to any coverage at all. I wonder if at least the list of cited sources was created by an LLM. - Donald Albury 13:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Internet radio station. I also share Donald's concerns about LLM use as every one of their objections about spam tagging comes with the same response which is clearly machine generated. Nathannah • 📮 13:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above. The phony sources are troubling -- @JTtheOG, thanks for catching this problem. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 23:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this was written by a chat bot. At worst, it's spam. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Always Chickens Out

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

Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month. Not relevant. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Social science, and United States of America. – The Grid (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that is independent of and primarily about the subject. It's too early to tell whether or not it'll still be relevant in a month, but notability is not temporary. It's funny that you mention the "meme" part of this, as that's another part of the article that needs to be expanded on... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon. Radiohist (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree here. CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon was made a week after the coverage busted, featured charting songs, and did not see coverage slow down. Meanwhile this article was made within half-a-day (and interest's already slowing down, if the Google Trends compared to that of Let's Go Brandon is anything to go by). The sources provided below to establish Sustained are nowhere near that for Let's Go Brandon. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tariffs in the second Trump administration CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Conman33: Above you 100% agree with a "Keep" !vote that stated it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon, so... are you sure you meant to !vote "Merge"? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll clarify and say "keep" the material but merge it into the Tariffs article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 23:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a by the book definition of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Trump responds to a question in a crazy way and it goes viral. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Trump's reaction to the phrase, it's about the phrase itself. This is a blatant misunderstanding of the article Thegoofhere (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's Go Brandon argument feels strong, despite WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't think it's WP:RECENTISM (/ WP:TRUMPCRUFT) either, there's something revelatory, that'll no doubt be merged later. Widefox; talk 21:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to have many similarities to Let's Go Brandon. And there is international coverage happening. If the term ends up not having any longevity or usage in say academic circles in the future, then it can just be merged later. It should also be noted that WP:TRUMPCRUFT is an essay and thus has zero weight as an argument in this discussion. So any editors above using it without any other argument being made above will likely (and absolutely should) be completely disregarded by the closer. Silver seren^C 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

"Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month"

Please cite the policy that states most people should know about the subject in order for it to have an article. Notablity is determined by the reliable sources that cover the topic, not random people.

"Not relevant"

What. The article is about a phrase about something Trump is currently doing, how isn't this relevant? Thegoofhere (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said TACO "won't be remembered in a month" despite the phrase coming from a news article from a month ago. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wide spread usage in the media with Trump already referencing it --LukeTriton (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already has significant coverage (including coverage of Trump's reaction). Merger into tariffs article would be, at best, premature; as Jonathan V. Last has pointed out:

It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.

JamesMLane t c 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT, fails WP:SUSTAINED. (@Thegoofhere The nominator's point was that there was no significant/sustained/enduring coverage after the month was past.) I would've said draftify if all the coverage weren't localized within two months ago. A suitable merge target is Tariffs in the second Trump administration; I do not see why this content would not be better covered contextualized within the article about this series of events. Everything within Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging except for #1—"Duplicate"—applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TRUMPCRUFT is an essay with no practical use as a WP:PAG to cite for deletion. WP:SUSTAINED is already addressed in the article (the term was first used just weeks ago, sources are still discussing the term to this day). Any other reading of WP:SUSTAINED is just WP:CRYSTALBALL in reverse... WP:MERGEREASON is an information page, not a policy or guideline. Certainly if there is a WP:PAG-based reason to merge or delete and the outcome is decided as such, those are good things to consider but they're not really relevant in a deletion discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MergeReason information page is mostly a great and concise summary of the WP:NoPage guideline. (Other points addressed below under Parankanyaa.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is part of WP:N, of which WP:GNG is a part of, and if an article meets GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article. You appear to be hanging your hat on the context bullet at WP:NOPAGE, and I'll address your idea that it's just about tariffs below. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. And not just context, all the other points apply as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify... you want them to apply, but they in fact, do not. I think I'm going to disengage from this discussion, as it's gotten very bad when I have to ask if you understand what a calendar is. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a calendar have to do with whether this topic would be much better served surrounded by its essential context? Aaron Liu (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the references say May, not March (which I presumed it to say because I just had a "March vs. May" discussion irl...). What I said about Sustained and merging still applies though. I technically support a draftification but I think a merge is better than draftification. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors when it comes to reading the article they want to delete:

Seriously, what weed are you smoking? Trump's TACOS have literally worsened public views of the US, America's international relations, and the US stock market. And you are saying people only cared about it for a week. Are you European perhaps? Thegoofhere (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. Inclusion of a standalone article on Wikipedia, besides the merge criteria and "encyclopedic" criteria the latter of which this no-doubt satisfies, requires good coverage in reliable sources so that we may have a neutral contextualization (among other things). See the misleadingly-titled Wikipedia:Notability guideline page. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. The term was first used by the media at the beginning of the month. The most recent sources are from today. Why do you need to be told this when it's in the article currently under discussion? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article that created the acronym was from the Financial Times in May 2, 2025. Link to the article in question, paywalled though. Financial Times is reliable, as shown in these reviews I found: [6][7][8] The article from FT is from May 2th, which was 28 days ago, not at all a "short" time. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sustained coverage. Even if you presume one month counts as sustained coverage (which contradicts my experience in software discussions), everything in this article save one sentence is sourced to a single burst from Trump's reaction.

And to Thegod's claimed lasting effect above: The article is about the term TACO, not the article on Trump's tariffs, whose effects you appear to be correctly identifying. I won't believe that Trump's reaction to or the existence of the term "TACO" will worsen international relations and image and stock markets until a reliable source says that. That's, as Locke said, CrystalBall.

As WP:NRV mentions, the onus to demonstrate notability is on those who want to keep. When speculating in both directions are equally CrystalBall, that doesn't mean we should keep the article. It is not unheard of for an article to be created WP:TOOSOON. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article not about exclusively about Trump's reaction, so I'd assume PARAKANYAA was talking about the tariffs Trump has imposed. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that's about the tariffs and maybe the theory that substantially overlaps with the topic of tariffs, not the term this article currently wants to focus on. I think Parakanyaa didn't mean to say there's nothing Trump does that could be considered notable, a statement that's obviously false. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regular readers will not be surprised by Unhedged’s view that the recent rally has a lot to do with markets realising that the US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain. This is the Taco theory: Trump Always Chickens Out. But why doesn’t that translate to resurgent growth hopes, higher yields and more expensive oil?

Financial Times: The US market’s surprise comeback

PARAKANYAA, this reference is from May 2. How does that fit into your "week of attention" claim? Silver seren^C 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A whole of one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to see that moving the goalposts is something people still shamelessly engage in. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Parakanyaa ever set the goalposts there. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So an opinion article that attempts to coin and promote this term is attention? If I make the word "sworgaso" to describe this is that attention from myself? Not to mention the opinion is directly addressing the deal with tariffs, not "TACO". The only articles that directly address "TACO" are the ones within the Trump's reaction burst. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes the GNG. Trump himself has been quoted in reliable secondary sources as using the term. The article contains encyclopedic information beyond being a DICDEF. Nom and others above give no valid reason for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may not be relevant in a month, but this follows the same track record of Donald Trump and Fox News since 2007. More of his garbage, yes, but people are still saying "MAGA" and "Trump is the best president ever", both of which are opinion, not fact, so these terms are still relevant because Trump is still in the news. 2601:203:481:ED20:417C:D538:8F9F:8441 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa and others. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiohist Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least as relevant as "Let's Go Brandon", passes the GNG. 2001:569:FB72:7700:E10F:F798:4137:3586 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa and many others ALoopingIcon (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily, worn out "neologism" type nonsense arguments are beaten by what should be the Covfefe standard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – While GNG may technically be met, the coverage of the phrase as a subject (to be distinguished from merely using the phrase) is limited – mostly just its origin, a negative response from Trump, and a positive response from some opponents. Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article, such as Tariffs in the second Trump administration (perhaps under "Political and legal challenges", but open to suggestions). Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern). See WP:MERGEREASON, particularly #3 (short text) and #5 (context). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article If you looked at all the other sources on this topic, you'd realize it cannot. Nobody is stopping you from adding to the article using these other sources. Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern) As mentioned elsewhere already, this is because those sources are before it took off. Prior to May 28, all use of the term was in relation to the stock market or the tariffs. After that, we are seeing much wider uses of the phrase and the acronym. WP:MERGEREASON is not a WP:PAG, it is purely informational and has no weight in this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that there should be some coverage of the topic; I'm just saying that the coverage is better incorporated elsewhere. If you want a PAG link, see WP:PAGEDECIDE to rehash the same idea (but also note that the WP:ATTSIT guideline points to Wikipedia:Merging, where MERGEDECIDE is located, so it does bear weight). And sure, I could add the sources above to the article... but the fact that nobody has is a decent indication that those sources don't really add anything; they simply happen to use the phrase which is the subject of the article. (An analogy: Is every article that mentions the Apollo 11 moon landing suitable as a reference there? No. Similarly, is every article that mentions "TACO" suitable as a reference here? Also no.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out WP:NoPage (the same section as WP:PageDecide) to you above already. You can treat mentions of WP:MergeReason as if editors are copy-pasting the entire-section as their own voice if you want.
Last's lone voice in an opinion editorial, albeit representing a newspaper, cannot be treated as a significant view without more coverage in factual articles, not to mention it's still been just. What's the other GNG-qualifying pieces that apply TACO beyond tariff policy? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that you don't or can't read Financial Times doesn't mean it's the same case for others. 2607:FA49:8744:6400:7438:1875:5970:2311 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been tons of media coverage, and the nickname has already permeated meme culture. If Hawk Tuah can have an article, than surely TACO can. OWA187 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has not been significant coverage of the topic and GNG is not met. This belongs on Know Your Meme, not Wikipedia. Merging with Tariffs in the second Trump administration and trimming to a paragraph would also be acceptable, but still iffy given how trivial this is. MrTaxes (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrTaxes, have you actually reviewed the sources and article yourself? Significant coverage means the sources are in depth, and don't require OR to extract the subject. Most of the reliable sources cited explain TACO directly and in detail. Please read the article you want to delete first Thegoofhere (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after reviewing the article and sources I don't believe it meets the necessary notability criteria, and is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:10YT, for example.

You are completely entitled to have a different opinion. That is just the conclusion I have come to after reading the article. MrTaxes (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that's separate from GNG, though what you mention is one of the reasons GNG only "presume"s a topic's notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources prior to May 28th

Since there seems to be a repeated claim in the discussion above that the term is a recentism that has only existed since Trump's discussion of it on Wednesday, May 28th, despite there being a source clearly in the article already discussing how it was first used on May 2nd, I thought I'd compile some additional sources discussing or using the term from prior to the 28th.

Taco Monday: a big relief, but - Financial Times (May 12th)
The ‘Taco’ factor has spurred markets higher - Financial Times (May 17th)
The ‘Taco’ trade, and whether to take a bite or resist - Australian Financial Review (May 18th)
Tariffs round II: ‘Game theory’ or ‘TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) time’? - The Post (May 25th)
Is Trump about to slug our superannuation again? - Switzer Daily (May 26th)
At debt’s door: US superpower is waning and Trump’s part of the problem - Sydney Morning Herald (May 27th)
Will Trump's tariff game rock markets again? We might be okay - Switzer Daily (May 27th)

Here's just some examples of the usage of the term prior. There's more out there, I'm sure. Silver seren^C 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(stole those for the article talk page as I'm sure there's some of these we can use in the article itself) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is most interesting, because it claims that Anthony Scaramucci was actually the origination of the fully worded term, which the Financial Times writer then turned into the acronym. Silver seren^C 01:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I wish the source said that, or there was a source that credited Scaramucci for the phrase and Armstrong for the acronym.. right now it'd be WP:SYNTH I think to take the various sources like that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy, some of which only use the term about twice without discussing it. I don't see why it's better to cover this on a contextless standalone page instead of a page that can describe the context much better as a main criticism of Trump's tariff policies that have significant impact. To truly cover TACO in depth, we must cover the tariff's impacts in depth as they are the basis for "TACO theory", and to do so in a standalone article would needlessly duplicate the work at the tariff article and lessen the quality of both articles. This shouldn't have a standalone article just as "anywhere but USA" shouldn't have a standalone article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy The section header should help explain this to you. Of course now that it's gone viral, you can look to sources such as the one provided by @JamesMLane above, which says It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO. As you can see, it's no longer just about the trade war/tariffs, and so the context argument is less compelling as Tariffs in the second Trump administration#Walk_back currently provides a mention of it, while the article proper goes deeper into further reactions, uses and can be expanded easily moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all of these articles, even the burst that fails Sustained, are about tariff policy. None of these sources discuss TACO applied to anything beyond tariffs. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a date is on a calendar? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't understand how that relates to what I said nor the fervor displayed here. You've also been mentioning this argument above so I'll elaborate there. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an article discussing TACO beyond tariffs, there's "'TACO' Is the Secret to Trump’s Resilience". I subscribe to the Times but it might be paywalled, so I'll summarize. A conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote:

Even if he dislikes the barnyard-fowl comparison, though, the acronym gets at something that’s crucial to Trump’s political resilience. The willingness to swerve and backpedal and contradict himself is a big part of what keeps the president viable, and the promise of chickening out is part of Trump’s implicit pitch to swing voters — reassuring them that anything extreme is also provisional, that he’s always testing limits (on policy, on power) but also generally willing to pull back.

. . . .

Trump has bobbed and wove away from his most extreme China tariffs, he has achieved some kind of separation from Elon Musk and he’s started complaining about the “crazy” Vladimir Putin while casting himself as the great would-be peacemaker of the Middle East. And lo and behold, his poll numbers have floated back up, not to genuine popularity but to a perfectly normal level for a president in a polarized country.

With a different president, you might say that this recovery happened in spite of the White House’s various backtracks and reversals (plus various rebukes from the judiciary). But with Trump it’s more apt to say that it’s happened because of these setbacks and recalibrations. Seeing Trump both check himself and be checked by others is what an important group of voters expect from his presidency. They like that Trump pressures institutions they distrust or dislike, from official Washington to elite universities, but their approval is contingent on a dynamic interaction, where he accepts counterpressure and retreats.

It's also relevant to notability to show that the meme is picked up and used in a way not entirely hostile to Trump. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this continues into next week and starts getting covered in many non-commentary articles I'd certainly be willing to change my opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But looking at a Google search among generally-reliable sources it's already slowing down quite badly. Yesterday there were two-and-a-half pages' worth of results after you filter out the results where Google picked up the sidebar of other headlines; today there's barely one page. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "non-commentary" article? Most sources tending to show notability of a meme will do so precisely because they comment on the meme itself. Articles about the Biden administration or the impact of Trump's reversals generally analyze the substance without using "Let's Go Brandon" or "TACO". JamesMLane t c 21:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term seems to be persisting - it's even being used by Le Figaro, a French conservative newspaper.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ in the same vain as the there is a sleepy joe page, the name is catching on, there for relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While people are comparing it to "Let's Go Brandon", that phrase has far more longstanding coverage in the media stretching over years of continuous use as a derogatory term, while this one fails WP:SUSTAINED and is WP:TOOSOON. It might become notable if people continue using it for a while, upon which time I'd have no qualms about it being an article, but, as of now, it may just be a flash-in-the-pan buzzword. Reminder that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to note that there's a new article in the Financial Times today by Gideon Rachman titled Trump always chickens out on foreign policy too covering things from a non-tariff angle. Silver seren^C 20:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was no strong argument to keep. I am much more convinced by the votes to delete, like the WP:TRUMPCRUFT guideline mentioned above. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline exactly, Historyexpert2? TRUMPCRUFT is an essay someone wrote. It is explicitly not a guideline. Silver seren^C 00:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's literally stated in the top of TRUMPCRUFT that it is not a guideline. I think some people aren't even reading the policies they cite. ~~ Thegoofhere (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is pretty broad. Two of the arguments brought forward by the nominator - this being a meme, and a lot of people not knowing about it - aren't relevant for notability, and the third one, this having been forgotten within the months, has already been shown to be untrue. Cortador (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He said it would be forgotten within a month, not within the month. That can only be definitely seen on June 26, one month after the burst, but the Google Trends is already flatlining, and despite the 5 articles on DNC's Taco Tuesday there's now only 9 articles from GRel sources published within the last 24 hours. 4 sources is only half a page compared to three days ago. This indeed seems on its track to be forgotten by next month. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming there's only 4 sources in the past 24 hours that aren't about the taco truck event? Huh...interesting. Let's count from a page or two of a Google search for today.

Fox News hilariously defends Trump over ‘TACO’ insult: ‘He’s the bravest man in the world!’ - The Independent (GREL)
The No. 1 Rule for Understanding Trump - The Atlantic (GREL)
This new trend is 'troubling' for Trump - and stats say he should be worried - Indy100 (The Independent subsidiary, so GREL)
Donald Trump's deleted SNL sketch has resurfaced amid TACO Trump meme - Indy100 (The Independent subsidiary, so GREL)
'TACO trade' is all over social media. What does it mean? - Journal & Courier (USA Today subsidiary, so GREL)
Why Trump’s ‘TACO’ Nickname Has Him So Upset - New York magazine (GREL)
Another major company sounds alarm over ‘TACO’ Trump tariffs - NJ.com (Unlisted)
What is 'TACO trade?' The Trump acronym about tariffs, explained - The Palm Beach Post (Unlisted)
How the TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out - trade played out on the JSE in May - News24 (Unlisted)
Sheinbaum Knows That Mexico Can’t Count on Trump ‘Chickening Out’ - World Politics Review (Unlisted)
Guillermo Fesser desvela el mote que han puesto a Trump tras sus vaivenes con los aranceles: "TACO, 'Trump Always Chickens Out'" (Translation: Guillermo Fesser reveals the nickname Trump has been given after his back-and-forth on tariffs: "TACO, 'Trump Always Chickens Out.'") - La Sexta (Unlisted)

I could probably keep going with a myriad of non-English sources. We don't really have many non-English news sources covered on the perennial list. A bit of a general oversight, I feel. Silver seren^C 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the full TACO term (Trump Always Chickens Out) has largely been superseded with abbreviating it as Taco Trump, as can be noticed from the sources I listed above. Yes, it's similar to saying ATM machine in its redundancy, don't get me started on American acronym usage. Anyways, if we make a comparative graph between the trend line you linked and Taco Trump, we see the latter term has far greater of a usage, several tens of times over the full term. And with it (currently at least) stabilizing at that high usage (27 to less than 1 as a comparative). Silver seren^C 02:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that does bring up more results. Searching just GRel sources and without forcing exact matches I got 11, 4, 3, 13, 16, 26, and 14 articles for today, 1 day ago, ... 7 days ago (when Trump reacted) respectively. It does seem like Taco Tuesday is making a new burst, and it'd be interesting to see if that lasts. (Also, about the graph, I think we should ignore the June 4th datapoint for today since that's just an extrapolated estimation based on the last 3 hours of UTC time, and I personally uselessly-speculate that the Taco Tuesday spike still being reflected as a decrease points towards the graph decreasing much further without that. If there continues to be non-trivial bursts over the next month then I'd be willing to change my !vote.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the GNG. While TRUMPCRUFT is a valid concern, this article passes the bar. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my previous !vote for Keep, I add a recent two-part development showing notability. First, the Democratic National Committee put the meme on a literal taco truck, with an image of Trump in a chicken suit. "The taco truck will be parked outside the Republican National Committee’s Washington, D.C., headquarters today, handing out free tacos." Second, the incident was significant enough to prompt the Vice President of the United States to denounce it. story, with photo of truck JamesMLane t c 20:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Duran

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered by some news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that, or even of the death itself really. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable-well, I think reliable-sources there from at least two different countries that demonstrate notability, on newspapers from Argentina and Chile and Infobae which is of international reach. Some sources even call her a narco-queen. Jeannete Jeanette Soprano Martin (aha?) 03:39, 29 May, 2025 (UTC)
Keep The page can be expanded with sources and information from the multiple sources about you online. There is a lot to write about her history with drugs and her career, there is a lot of information online and she was nicknamed Narco Queen in this context. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at least, it's better to change the title to "death/killing/murder of Sabrina Durán" like how probably it will end for Valeria Márquez or María José Estupiñán, so citing all the Biographical traits in a section before the murder. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina is notable for something not just her unfortunate death, the user who nominated this article for deletion didnt do enough research it seems. Imai akirah (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I know. But since they are thinking of changing the title of Valeria Márquez's page to "death of Valeria Márquez", I suggested the same for this page. In any case, I implemented the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename "The Killing of Sabrina Durán". There’s nothing to establish notability prior to her murder. Per WP:SINGLEEVENT there seems to only be coverage of her death. The Narco Queen nickname is entirely insufficient.Hy Brasil (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Renaming it "death of Sabrina Duràn" is more correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of Sabrina Duràn".
Sabrina Duràn → Killing of Sabrina Duràn. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, unclear why you're singling me out for this, but you've made this comment a few times now here. Note this is a discussion to gauge consensus, you're not trying to convince me personally of something.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you requested deletion for a page that apparently - we have noticed, not only I but others also did - not know enough. I repeat, it doesn't seem to me that Valeria Márquez's page creates problems for you, so I don't see why this should be. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale by nom WP:SINGLEEVENT. Nothing but routine news coverage as evidenced by the date of the sources, all of which are from the last week of October 2023. Person was non-notable before their death, and is still non-notable after their death, with no sustained coverage. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Yan

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:SINGER criteria. I cannot find multiple independent, credible sources on the web. I began trying to remove obviously-bad sources but reverted when I realized I would have stripped the article of basically all citations and I wasn't having luck finding better ones. The sources in the article appear to be promotional articles and almost all of them do not actually match the statements they're supporting:

Article Text	Source
Details about her family and early education remain private, as she prefers to keep her personal life out of the public eye	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
Her content often draws inspiration from anime and video games like Genshin Impact, reflecting her personal interests	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
"Her Instagram account, also under @shaniayanofc, has over 2 million followers, where she shares selfies and career-related content"	Two sources: beacons.ai marketing platform, and myCast which is user-generated content

I'm unable to find credible, independent sources in my Googling. The only thing that comes close is the paper listed as a source in the article. While articles generated through AI are not (to my knowledge) automatic candidates for AfD, it's still worth mentioning that the article itself appears to be mostly just that, and some of the sources' URLs show very clearly that the editor arrived there by ChatGPT (https://beacons.ai/i/blog/shania-yan-bio?utm_source=chatgpt.com). I don't believe this meets notability per WP:SINGER, and if it does meet notability, I'm not sure how we're going to replace the bad sources if independent, credible ones do not exist. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Indonesia. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes I agree that major revisions are needed in this article, but I definitely do think the subject of the article is notable. There is also a peer reviewed article on her song : https://jurnal.masoemuniversity.ac.id/index.php/englishpedagogy/article/view/677 Yes, most of the current content are unsourced because some are from primary sources, but those can be improved. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig results raised some questions about the originality of the lead for me, and due to the only keep vote coming from the author, I'm going to support draftifying this article. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a claim to notability in the article and the sources are particularly weak and don't seem to match the claims they are attached to, per nom. In my own searching I found nothing better than anything in the article. Moritoriko (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG; Google search doesn't find any reliable in-depth secondary sources; ~~only source on the article is primary~~ loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Organizations. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources Guylaen (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that anyone can nominate, but because you don't have a user page, and this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm slightly suspicious of your intentions here in nominating this article for deletion. I do not mean to be accusatory in my nature here, I'm just a little confused. This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Also, I realize my mistake in not adding a Wikipedia:Stub tag before. I've added that now to the page. I usually remember to do that. Guylaen (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guylaen

you don't have a user page A userpage is optional, and that shouldn't make me (or anyone) suspicious or anything like that; see Trappist the monk and they are an administrator.

this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation Just the fact that something has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make it important or notable, AFAIK.

This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Current or former people holding this title may be notable, but I haven't seen any INDEPTH sources on the title itself.

Also please note that I don't know everything there is to know about Wikipedia and its policies so if I made a mistake please inform me. loserhead (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in either case, I've now listed more sources on this page than there are on List of leaders of Ford Motor Company. Guylaen (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly encourage you to please read bullet "C-2" at WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."

I literally only made the page six days ago. That's less than a week. I was going to properly build out this page a little more, but I got completely sidetracked by Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025. I just kind of fell down a Ukraine rabbit hole. I have the same problem that most other writers here have: so little time, and so many articles.

Also, I literally have a final due tonight, and I have to go meet Leon Panetta again at noon. I would be looking forward to it, but I think I have a hernia and I've probably got GERD and I feel like crap. Anyways.

The problem in searching for a term like "CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation" is that in that most cases, the position itself is not the primary subject of a news story, but the person who holds the position, or the person who is doing something while they hold that position. So, yes, of course you're going to find mostly articles about the people. And by the rules, that's actually fine.

However, there are sources - you just have to muddle yourself through the internet to find them. Guylaen (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because the sources don't exist, but in this case it is the Parallax effect: the individual CEO's loom far larger than the position of CEO. Guylaen (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other than the Forbes puff piece, and the NY Post attack article, I don't see anything unreliable. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The easy compromise is to rename it 'List of CEOs....' as in fact it is and should be in case of affiliated person positions (out of humbleness, to say the least). 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors about this article and what the outcome of this discussion should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikimedia Foundation#Staff. Coverage of the various CEOs does not necessitate that the position of Wikimedia CEO have its own spinoff article from the main Wikimedia article - that is governed by WP:NOPAGE and WP:CFORK. Even if this subject was notable, that does not mean it needs its own article - in this case, the current article is short enough that it could be merged into the staff section. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relist before closing this, likely as "No consensus"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has substantial issues, but the topic itself doesn't seem to lack notability. Multiple independent sources have covered the CEO of the Wikimedia foundation. MrTaxes (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StreetComplete

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

Promotional content, no indication of notability. This used to be a redirect which may be a better idea thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would be better to improve the article instead of deleting it, StreetComplete is not the same as OSM. I'm not super familiar with Wikipedia but IMO notability seems to be fulfilled with several different sources covering the topic.

Also, could you please be more specific on what parts are "promotional" and how they could be re phrased.

Thanks and best regards --Fkjs (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: One sentence mentioned in https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/02/google_blocks_android_foss_donations/, many project descriptions at https://nlnet.nl/project/; NLNet seems to be considered a reliable secondary source, see LabPlot precedent. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has good source coverage and advertising issues are fixed by now Fkjs (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a evaluation on the new references added to the article? Hoping to have clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Crime, Discrimination, Internet, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and the previous deletion nomination. Also salt to prevent future recreations until he actually becomes notable. λ NegativeMP1 13:45, 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:

Global Digital Influence: Ranked by Dexerto as the 12th-largest Kick streamer worldwide and Africa’s #1.
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:

The most watched streaming gamer of the first quarter of 2023 (surpassing IShowSpeed), Dexerto & SVG.
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.
12th biggest streamer worldwide, Dexerto.
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.
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]

TruVista Communications

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 02:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are sources showing it exists, but nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. I found it strange that a company claiming to be more than 100 years old has no online presence. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Chester Telephone Company was started in 1897 as privately-owned independent telephone company to serve the small rural town of Chester, South Carolina. In the 1980s, it was one of the investors in a successful regional fiber network, PalmettoNet,^[9] that sold broadband capacity and dark fiber to large long distance telecoms and big corporate users. It also began acquiring small cable TV systems and now says it serves about 60,000 customers.^[10] Over the years, Chester Telephone, then TruVista got industry coverage for deploying new (at the time) technologies.^[11] TruVista was purchased by a big private equity firm, iCON Infrastructure, in 2019 and operates autonomously. ^[12] I personally think we should have an article about this company since it's part of the history of rural telecommunications. I know it would meet WP:GNG. However, companies have to meet Wikipedia's much more restrictive WP:NCORP guideline which effectively disqualifies most otherwise reliable press coverage (including major events such as "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business") from notability consideration. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 17 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: [13][14][15][16] There's plenty more; this search [17] 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 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]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [18] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [19] - and La Vanguardia - [20] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 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]

Other XfDs