Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

[edit]

Trump Always Chickens Out

[edit]
Trump Always Chickens Out (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)

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]

  • 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 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. SilverserenC 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]
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]
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: [1][2][3] 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]
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? SilverserenC 01:20, 30 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]

Artificial intelligence in social media

[edit]
Artificial intelligence in 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)

Non-notable and entirely unsuitable to be merged. Text has clearly been created with some form of LLM-assistance, and suffers from pervasive neutrality and sourcing issues. I started trying to attempt a cleanup but upon encountering a journal that was cited to page 22 when the journal itself was only 21 pages I knew it was unsalvageable. If an editor believes this to be a notable topic, then it will be easier to apply WP:TNT than to try and groom the current mess into a sourced and encyclopedic form. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. please confirm your statement.
I wanted to express that I’m feeling quite frustrated today. I came back to editing Wikipedia after many years, hoping to contribute positively now that I have more time. However, my recent experience has left me feeling like the editing environment has become quite monopolized by a tight group of editors.
Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback, I feel that my article has been heavily targeted — with multiple edits and removals coming from what appear to be linked editors. Frankly, it feels like there’s a coordinated effort or bias to remove my contributions, rather than improve them collaboratively.
I would really appreciate more transparency and guidance, rather than feeling like I’m being dismissed or blocked without a fair chance to improve the article.
Please let me know if there’s a better process for addressing these concerns. WikiJuanBeltran (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't cited any specific pages of any journal. – Downsides of using an LLM to edit, you don't even know what gets included. See the very first revision of the page here, citation 4.
raw citation
{{Cite journal |last=Akhtar |first=Zarif Bin |date=2024-06-12 |title=Unveiling the evolution of generative AI (GAI): a comprehensive and investigative analysis toward LLM models (2021–2024) and beyond |url=https://jesit.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |journal=Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22 |doi=10.1186/s43067-024-00145-1 |issn=2314-7172}}
"Instead of receiving support or constructive feedback" – [4][5][6][7]. Additional feedback from myself: stop using an LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly AI-driven editing (as is the article author's comment on this AFD), not worth cleaning up the factual errors and sourcing - the author clearly has no idea which sources are reliable and which aren't, even after being pointed to the relevant guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While considerable effort has gone into formatting the citations, the article itself is obviously an AI-generated persuasive essay, not a neutral encyclopedic summary of a noteworthy topic. NotBartEhrman (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT per nom. There are far too many problems here. Many of the sources I looked at didn't support the sentences they were attached to at all. Several of these sources predate the issues they are supposed to be documenting. Further, many of these sources are to pre-prints, corporate blogs, self-published essays, or opinions used for sweeping statements of fact. Tellingly, only one of the cited sources includes 'social media' in its title, and that source doesn't mention 'artificial intelligence' at all. The tone issues are pervasive. The only way to salvage this would be a complete rewrite from the ground up, and only a few of these sources would even be usable at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Every single reference is either primary and/or unreliable. The bot that tied this together ironically shows the limits of AI. FWIW, I'm on record as welcoming many new and returning editors. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Duran

[edit]
Sabrina Duran (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 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]

Trap Lore Ross

[edit]
Trap Lore Ross (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)

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.
Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.
Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.
I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw when you say “ Another example is the sentence” you know you are talking about the same example?
I replied below to your accusation of fictitious citation. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources at the end of that sentence says:
  • “ Up next for TLR ... deep dives into NBA YoungBoy and Quando Rondo. Who knows, there may be one of Boosie too!!!”
  • “ You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating. “ the article continues to describe what he does
so I am not sure how you are not able to verify the sentence. It doesn’t need to be verbatim or paraphrased from the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up two different sentences that do not have truthful citations. I will go through them in detail, since you seem to be confused.
"He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues."
No source mentions him covering "the evolution of hip-hop culture". It is entirely possible that he has done this, but it's not sourced.
"His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary."
Indeed, the Defector source has the text "You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating.", but it's preceded and followed by a extremely negative opinion on this person. The source argues that people like him are "provocateurs" and their work is a form of cultural "exploitation". The author is basically arguing that he what he does is more akin to "exploitation" than "cultural commentary". RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you looked to the sources in the article and found one is RS and dismissed TMZ? Why? Looking to WP:PRS, it doesn’t not dismiss TMZ + notability is not decided by the sources in the article as the article was not updated since 2024. If you look now all these are sources about the person:
  • notability is met in the article and more sources can be found outside the article
  • accusations of using AI to write the article is not a cause to delete an article (you can take to me to ANI or the village for discussion), and
  • the prose is excellent, every line is sourced, grammatically sound and the text can be understood.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted"
These mean the same thing. AI-like text is just a specific form of poor prose. I am not moving any goalposts. WP:TNT mentions that articles that could meet notability requirements are routinely deleted for being poor quality such that an entire rewrite from a red link would be preferable to having a blue link.
The prose is not "excellent" (as it reads like AI prose), a text being understandable does not mean that it's encyclopedic in tone. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which part is not encloypedic, your argument is about style, not susbtance, which not a cause for deletion
Which part of WP:TNT are you alluding to?
To be honest, if you look to the comments no one is paying attention to your nom. Which is good becuase your nom does not have legs. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I don't see any redeeming qualities about this article. This seems like a glorified fan writeup, and it isn't even written by a human's hands. I concur with the comments by Oaktree. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial sources list

[edit]
Perennial sources list (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)

Note: This is not about deleting the non-article page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which has nearly the same name as the article about it, To lessen confusion I will refer to the non-article page as WP:RSP.

WP:CIRC is unfixably violated. The policy is "Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." -- and of course any publication that is quoting WP:RSP or WP:RSN is doing exactly that. We must look at "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article." which arguably includes WP:RSP (though it's just an essay-class page not Wikipedia itself); however, in that case WP:CIRC says the sources must be considered primary sources and WP:PRIMARY says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

Wikipedia:Notability is not as clear as it might appear. I see cited articles with little or no mention of WP:RSP, for example this Jewish Journal article doesn't mention it, this Slate article doesn't mention it, this USA Today article vaguely mentions a "list" without naming it, this CNBC article was written in 2017 before WP:RSP came into existence in 2018, this wired article has a sentence with a link to it but thinks it's a "guide to sources". To some extent this happens because much (or in my opinion "most") of the article is not about WP:RSP but about WP:RSN discussions. So a count of cites and subtopics would be deceptive, although I'm admitting there are several that indeed mention WP:RSP.

WP:SOAPBOX is inevitable. A glance at the history pages will show that some contributors have also contributed to WP:RSP, and a glance at the article will show it contains hurrah wording like "community-maintained", "significant news coverage", without direct links to criticisms of the WP:RSN rulings even when talking about them (for example "Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision" does not and can not cite the Daily Mail without violating policy) (for example "the list was criticized by American conservative group Media Research Center" does not cite Media Research Center which is listed as generally unreliable on WP:RSP).

I will not object if the article's defenders canvass by posting to places related to WP:RSP, but hope any closer will be 100% uninvolved. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7th Generation Network

[edit]
7th Generation Network (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)

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Looks like its here more of promoting websites/company and content from medium.com. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Yan

[edit]
Shania Yan (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)

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. —tonyst (talk) 18:41, 22 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]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]
Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation (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; 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. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stobotnik

[edit]
Stobotnik (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 was made aware of this article when I was notified it linked to an article of mine. I find it to be non-notable, with only The Mary Sue article and the ComingSoon.net interview as sources for establishing notability (probably for the former, as it doesn't dive into fan works much). The Washington Post article doesn't provide WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage in my view. The Anthem Magazine interview does cover the relationship between the characters in the stories, but not the fan ship, and the Toronto Star article barely covers the relationship itself, as does the the IGN article. The Kotaku article cannot be used at all due to Kotaku articles written since 2023 having been declared unreliable. The rest of the sources are WP:VALNET sources, which cannot be used to establish notability. Google News searches for "stobotnik", "stone x robotnik", and "robotnik x stone" only brought up some of the prior sources, Valnet sources, and an interview that doesn't cover the fan ship (from reading the automatically-generated transcript). ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks to the nominator for spelling out the results of her WP:BEFORE search. That often does not happen in a deletion nomination but is very helpful. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Significant coverage can indicate an cultural trend is presumably notable, but when the trend itself is not defined by the term used, is so shallow and inextricably tied to a broader property, then no coverage really justifies an article. On merging - why not? It's not like there's much here to merge anyway. It should be easy to import a single sentence - Fan reactions to the evolving relationship between Agent Stone and Dr. Robotnik were favorable, prompting the creation of shipping and fanfiction that was acknowledged by Majdoub and Carrey. I wouldn't suggest this really merits any more than that. Otherwise, delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StreetComplete

[edit]
StreetComplete (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)

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]

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]

Ilyas El Maliki

[edit]
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]

TruVista Communications

[edit]
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]

Holafly

[edit]
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]
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]

Chromebook challenge

[edit]
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, [15] with 3 people confirmed to be hospitalized due to concerns of smoke inhalation. [16]. 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. [17][18] 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]

RTP payload formats

[edit]
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]

Other XfDs

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1292955906"