Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

Low taper fade (meme)

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

~~Too massive to stay on wikipedia~~ (no reliable sources, fails WP:GNG) ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The meme is popular, but not notable enough or long-lasting to have an article. Needs more information and reliable sources Thegoofhere (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - i originally approved it from draft. popular meme, and saw that there was at least a rolling stone article and Yahoo News article, which are both on WP:RSP and suggest notability. Daily Dot is also on WP:RSP, though we are supposed to attribute it. That also seemed to indicate notability.

The other sourcing probably can't prove notability, agreed, but I edited after the fact to cite some of the claims (i.e. apparently an interview by Ninja from some podcast). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh did not realize there is a subsection on Ninja's page.

maybe we can just redirect to Ninja_(gamer)#Low_Taper_Fade Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(+1) Thegoofhere (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted (tagged) we've gone through this before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low taper fade. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Taper Fade (disambiguation). —‍Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G4 per above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [1][2][3], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Doyle (Jet Lag: The Game)

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

Should be reverted back to a redirect, the sources do not show notability, and are largely unreliable. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, California, Maryland, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as much as I like the topic of this article he does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG as there are few (if any) reliable secondary sources to establish notability TheMysteriousStar (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, the article is written from a fan’s perspective, does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG, and is much better served as a redirect to the main article about the show itself. The photo used should also be deleted, as I believe it’s been copied from Nebula without permission from the rightsholders. LivLovisa (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. Fails GNG, though there's no need to delete it. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. Not notable in their own right. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jet Lag: The Game. No evidence of notability by himself. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While the article needs improvements in sourcing and tone, I believe the subject is notable for his role as co-creator and host of the popular travel competition series *Jet Lag: The Game*, which has received Streamy and Webby Award recognition. This establishes some level of cultural significance. I encourage editors to improve the article with better sourcing and structure instead of deleting it. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, improvement should be considered before deletion.If anyone is able to help locate better sources or improve the tone and citation structure, that would be greatly appreciated. Erichbchk (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, the article fails WP:GNG, but I agree with @Somebodyidkfkdt, it should be redirected to Jet Lag: The Game.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grok (web framework)

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Sources provided are primary or blog sites and I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Not to be confused with the other Grok by Twitter/X. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was instrumental to the creation of Grok the web framework so I'm not an unbiased source; in this day and age I would not feel comfortable editing a wikipedia page about it anymore. We're talking about a web framework that had minor but global attention but has had little attention for a long time.

There is actually a published book about Grok:

https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/grok-10-web-development-9781847197498

https://www.amazon.com/Grok-1-0-Development-Carlos-Guardia/dp/1847197485

At some point Grok technology was part of the Plone project:

https://4.docs.plone.org/appendices/five-grok/background/what-is-grok-and-five-grok.html

It's not a surprise most of the stuff you could find is in blog sites; this was a web framework conceived during the heyday of blogging and a lot of the primary evidence it had some significance and users in multiple countries is through blog entries. So in the rest I will attempt to show that there was a little global community that used Grok and talked about it. I'm from the Netherlands myself, gave conference talks at least in Germany as far as I can recall.

The author of the Grok book, Carlos de la Guardia, is from Mexico.

Here's a company in Lithuania that still has a page up offering Grok consulting services:

http://www.nous.lt/consulting.html

Here's a conference talk recording (with terrible audio) about Grok at a Pycon conference in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF77e2TeeQo

Here's a talk held in Argentina about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbFujCBHjg

Here's a random youtube video mentioning Grok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17HFEwhz80

A US developer at Georgia tech:

And here are some blog entries:

https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2007/my-november-grok-presentation/

A US developer reports on a developer in Brazil (now the author of "Fluent Python") using it:

https://www.nateaune.com/kirbi-a-peer-to-peer-library-built-with-grok/

Here's someone blogging in French about it:

https://www.boureliou.com/2009/grok-1-0-released/

Here's a presentation in Japanese that mentions Grok:

http://plone.jp/event-report/opendocs/osw2009-zope

Here's the website of a company in Germany who talk about a Grok meetup:

https://www.acsr.de/archive/der-grok-neanderthal-sprint-im-rheinland/

So it was notable enough to have a small global community of people who used it and talked about t, but it was also a relatively small community. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this paper which discusses Grok:

"Leveraging Convention over Configuration for

Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages"

https://dave.coffee/assets/GreHack-2012-Leveraging_Convention_over_Configuration_for_Static_Analysis_in_Dynamic_Languages.pdf Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google book search and there are actually quite a few books that mention Grok:

Professional Plone 4 Development by Martin Aspeli, 2011

Pro Python System Administration by Rytis Sileika, 2014

Python for Unix and Linux System Administration by Noah Gift, ‎Jeremy M. Jones, 2008

Plone 3 Products Development Cookbook by Juan Pablo Giménez, 2010

Foundations of Python Network Programming by John Goerzen, ‎Tim Bower, ‎Brandon Rhodes, 2011

Mastering Python Design Patterns by Sakis Kasampalis, 2015

Python: Master the Art of Design Patterns by Dusty Phillips, ‎Chetan Giridhar, ‎Sakis Kasampalis, 2016

Enterprise Android: Programming Android Database Applications for the Enterprise

By Zigurd Mednieks, G. Blake Meike, Laird Dornin, Zane Pan, 2013

Even an article on Dutch history by J.W.J. Burgers – Rik Hoekstra The registers of the counts of Holland, 1316–1345: a digital edition in G. Vogeler (Hrsg.): Digitale Diplomatik

/ Buchrezensionen mentions Grok in a technology credit.

Oh, and Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho, a very popular book about Python, mentions Grok:

Fluent Python: Clear, Concise, and Effective Programming - Page xxiii Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some papers that discuss Grok in some detail:

Worth, David, and Justin Collins. "Leveraging Convention over Configuration for Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages." G 2 reHack 012: 27.

Cerjak, Jure. Razvoj spletnih aplikacij s platformo Zope. Diss. Univerza v Ljubljani, 2010.

Lederer, Dominique. "zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades” Master of Science in Engineering”/” Diplomingenieur (FH)”."

Foglia Ardila, Andrés Felipe. "Comparación del desarrollo de un aplicativo web entre los lenguajes de programación Python y Java." (2014).

There are plenty of other papers that mention Grok as a Python web framework in a more throwaway way, but that still establishes some level of notability. A good way to filter papers for this specific Grok is to look for "grok zope" or "grok python" (the former works better than the latter). Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links about Elon's version of Grok. I'm not sure what's given for sourcing is enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zope#Grok which should be slightly expanded with material from this article. This would make the Zope article a bit more robust, match other Zope redirects listed in Category:Python_(programming_language)_web_frameworks, and not break any external links pointing to this article. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging it into Zope as was suggested would make a lot of sense, with a redirect. While Grok may be obscure now, I think the sources I dug up do demonstrate a level of notability.

Is it because another project named Grok came to prominence that this article has received more scrutiny recently? Search engines would be far more likely to lead to Grok the web framework related material in the past than they do now. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confuses readers yes, but does not pass WP:SIGCOV more importantly and for that reason the article should be deleted, not the other or any other reasons which are not grounded in policies or guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, please take no offense to this query, but I am curious about what sort of factors a closer uses to decide on consensus? It would appear to me to be very much subjective based on the closer. For example, what here brought you to say, "Is there any more support for a Merge or Redirect?" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Liz, but when there is consensus not to retain an article as a standalone page, the WP:ATD policy recommends looking for an alternative to deletion, typically in the form of a redirect or merge to a suitable target. There doesn't need to be a consensus to redirect or merge for an AfD to be closed as such. All that is required is consensus not to keep the article, and some support for the alternative for deletion. So yes, Iljhgtn, there is a fair amount of leeway in how a closer may read consensus. But in this case, Liz is doing exactly what any closer should do, namely, seek support for the lone call to Redirect the page. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 15:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense, but I rarely, if ever, see others do what she is doing. Either they are almost all doing it wrong... or... so I just felt it best to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank S. Jorga

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

Most of the sources are dedicated solely to the Webid company or are based on interviews and statements. There is no clear notability per Anybio and gng. Unicorbia (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex O'Connor

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, there's also no indication the factors have changed since the last AfD after which it was deleted. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The factors have changed since the last AfD. The article's subject is now covered in more reliable secondary sources that were not present in the previously deleted article, such as articles in The Atlantic, Varsity, and The Freethinker. The article from 2024 that was deleted did not contain these kinds of citations. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Studios

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

Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIVE Studios. G4 was declined, so bringing it back for discussion. Currently has zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources (one of them does not even mention the subject). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the admin which declined the speedy, based on sources varying from the original process. I'm unimpressed with sources applied and my reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better on the web. Run-of-the-mill applies. Happy to see improvement, but now it's still an A7, so far as I can see. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search AI Overviews

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

Doesn’t expand on content already covered in the google search article and mostly unnecessary content ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's content in this article that isn't covered in Google Search, such as the lawsuit from Chegg, Google implementing link placement prioritization measures, and info about the AI's functionality (though that section isn't sourced). Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article's name was moved to AI Overviews by InfiniteNexus. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and the effects on American adolescents

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

Not even trying to be anything other than an essay. The sources are high-quality (even if already dated), but it flunks WP:FORUM criterion 1 and WP:SOAPBOX. Patrick (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An article on this topic seems useful, and as noted above, it's well sourced(if dated). But structuring this into something article-worthy seems like it would effectively require rewriting it from the ground up.
Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my delete and changing to Draft per Oaktree b. The sources that are currently there could be useful for a rewritten article and should be preserved.Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Social science, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is just an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Although an article on this topic would be useful, it needs to be rewritten substantially, and so the best thing is just to delete it. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: might want to !draft it, it has good sources but oh boy does it need updating. I'm sure this is still an issue with the adolescents of today. Perhaps rewrite so it's worldwide, not just in the USA though. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:TNT applies. Created almost 10 years ago and this would require a rewrite for today. – The Grid (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone steps up to rewrite the article, I'll happily withdraw my nomination for deletion. Based on the edit histories of the major contributors, however, I'm not sure where we could draftify it and expect to get anything back. Patrick (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been through 1 rewrite in 2018. Witness Special:Permalink/852239206 and Special:Diff/852467366. It grew from that, via multiple WikiEd course assignments listed on the talk page, back to the same size as before. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If draft isn't an option, I'm ok with a !delete. I wouldn't want to rewrite it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; also, is a page with this niche of a topic necessary, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I get that in all likelihood, American adolescents are probably the most studied when it comes to social media case studies, but could this page not theoretically be merged onto a page on social media addiction in general? Or a one on teenagers in general? Unless there's something funky specifically targetting American adolsecents, I really think the scope should be broader. jolielover♥talk 20:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems arbitrary to only focus on Americans when it comes to such broad claims about general use, and either way the page reads like a soapbox with stances for and against social media. I'm surprised this didn't focus on just positive or just negative claims, which would've led to WP:POV problems. Not seeing a feasible way to rewrite the page as it does read like an essay. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides. There has been tons of research on the topic, but the article (essay?) as written has a lot of issues. But it could be rescued with some work. I've spent the weekend trying to rescue a different article, which by my count is about # 211 or so that I've rescued, and got an angry email from a young man offended and complaining about the tone of one of my edit summaries. I can't even. So if you want to rescue this, it's your turn. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the previous comments. The topic is interesting and supported by reliable sources, even if they are dated. I'm sure more up-to-date research could be added. The scope should probably be expanded to include all adolescents as well, instead of limiting it to Americans. But if that is not a popular option then my second choice would be to delete it. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jive PR+Digital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All but the final two sources are passing mentions, and the final two are from Instagram/Linkedin. Found nothing useful after a search online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This should be a good candidate of CSD because there is not a single source in the article that count for notability and nothing out there to qualify WP:NCORP. Mekomo (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I agree, this fails WP:NCORP, plus it also gives off some promotional vibes (at least to me).

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MXlo

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

No sources, very scant usage of the term mxlo online. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Best Regards (CP) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search also came up empty. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim of significance, unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if this can be speedied but it appears to be a combination of WP:G2 and WP:G7. If it can't, I think these are still good reasons to delete after AfD - it's indiscriminate information that would require considerable effort and WP:OR to assemble into a reliable list and nobody is likely to do that. Even if they did, it would be almost instantly out of date. JMWt (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly specific title LMFAO. Clearly do not pass WP:NLIST Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nearly 10 yr old list, with only three countries listed. Very likely speedy deletion material... It looks like an unfinished stub draft that got pushed into mainspace then forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:DAFT. Incredibly specific. — E_F⁵ 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Previous AFD was opened by article creator and sole contributor and should have been considered a WP:G7 request. OZOO (t) (c) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of date and unsourced list, and as the VPN industry exists on secrecy and is a consolidated space (several services are owned by a group of companies), it's doubtful we can even get true and reliable statistics about this in the first place. Also generally these 'market share' articles usually contribute nothing to the reader and are WP:PROMO. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Gubanov

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a couple of russian sources covered after he was recognized as a foreign agent on 4 April, even with this news the only notable magazine that covered it was Lenta.ru, which is blacklisted. Russian wiki also deleted the page. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Alexey Gubanov, which I have declined because this article exists. Is there any content or sources in the draft that can be added to the article? (I have not reviewed either the draft or the article in detail, and do not at this time have an opinion on notability.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and merge. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm not putting any weight into whether or not the subject has a Russian language article. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deegree

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. 0 sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. MidnightMayhem 14:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Scholar turns up multiple reliable references —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CyberStep

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on the article, I did want to point out that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person—i.e. WP:BIO—would not come into play for an article for a company, which falls under NCORP instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources on JP wiki or done a BEFORE in Japanese? IgelRM (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcom Bulgaria

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

should be deleted due to concerns regarding its overall notability, lack of extensive coverage in independent sources, and the potential for promotional language that undermines its informational value. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT and article is near entirely uncited aside from the only citation, which references one of the endless number of websites that collate basic info on businesses. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Philippines

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Philippines. A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services Sources are all WP:ITEXISTS, then ITNOLONGEREXISTS as with most country-specific portal sites for Yahoo. Nathannah • 📮 22:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services per Nathannah. I don't think there's enough material here to warrant an article but it won't hurt to have a cited mention in the parent article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, a bit longer than the current entries at the target but that seems fine, no reason the current entries couldn't be longer too. CMD (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services per above jolielover♥talk 07:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cheese

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

non notable meme, fails wp:gng. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Know your Meme isn't a RS and I don't find any other sourcing for this "thing". Some articles about actual cheese. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Cheese is a notable shift in cultural norms within the United States, and thus, I believe that this Tim Cheese Wikipedia page deserves more time to be better covered by news and the media before it is deleted. Taiwan Supporter (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The meme just started give it some time if it really dies down delete it but i keep seeing this meme everywhere Vortexherelol (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC) — Vortexherelol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No reliable sources of this non-notable offshoot of other "virtual influencers" Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really leaning towards A7 speedy due to no semblance of importance given in the article except the fact it's "like other memes". /over.throws/^✎ 02:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. - Roxy the dog 07:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This article relies exclusively on unreliable sources and does not contain a single statement regarding the significance of its subject. Overall, there are no sustained discussions of this meme in reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: All source are unreliable, not independent and WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG, likely A7 but it’s here already Best Regards (CP) 21:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for the same reason as chip. Toketaa^talk 12:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found Dexerto, which does not contribute much to notability; Sportskeeda, which is unreliable; and Screenshot Media. From a couple RSN threads, Screenshot seems like an okay-ish source for internet culture stuff, but one potentially good source is not going to cut it. Could be too soon for an article. (Also, the meme was "criticized as being lobotomy"? What??) ObserveOwl (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete massively fails WP:GNG Opolito (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a million times over per above. Fails WP:GNG. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have never been the start of something. The sourcing is atrocious. There's lots of other places for this kind of thing. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. No notability for a short lasting meme. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meme has led to radio announcements, real life protests, and a go fund me for a homeless character involved in the storyline. This article should not be deleted. Jakegorham8 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Jakegorham8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 20:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konnexx Services Ltd

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

No sources not connected to the subject, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Caribbean, and Jamaica. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 23:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under G11 as an entirely promotional page.

Delete per nom since it fails NCORP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Could you please explain why you removed the tag so quickly? CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't hit the level of WP:TNT. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, although I still think the article is mildly promotional and lacks proper sourcing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a telecoms firm, created under this variant name after another name was protected after repeated re-creations [8]. Such coverage as I can find relates to company donations [9] and sponsorships ([10] [11]), which fall under WP:CORPTRIV. A firm going about its business, but no evidence that it has attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDStarcraft

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

Non-notable ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no independent coverage of this person. I only see them being briefly mentioned in the context of tournaments. Cortador (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Smellmitment

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one piece of secondary coverage, and it's completely routine. Can be merged to Old Spice#Advertising. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some coverage in RS [12], [13]. But !delete is probably fine, these are thin articles in RS. Sourcing now in the article is only in PR/advertising items I'd consider primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think merging info from this article to The Man Your Man Could Smell Like would be most appropriate. Would need someone to put in the work + probably create a new section about follow on campaigns. In the absence of a merge, I would say weak keep for this article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fletcher

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

All coverage (which is weak) is of the internet show he created—not of him. Non-notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be WP:INDEPENDENT, or at least some of them, if ALL of them are not, then the article should be deleted and does not pass GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aluka (gamer)

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

Non-notable; found no secondary coverage ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and China. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable former player with no achievements during his career. The Wikipedia article claims he was hailed as one of the best players in his role but cites sources giving generic praise for particular games. While competing for Team WE in the LPL, the tier-one domestic league in China, his team peaked at 5th out of 8 teams, while the rest of their placements were consistently in the bottom four (8th to 12th). Aluka himself never received any player titles (MVP, best rookie, all-pro team, etc.). Yue🌙 07:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are junk and do not establish notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meme hack

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

This seems to be an article on an obscure, disused term that was coined in the late 90s to early 2000s and is only used in two sources, and doesn't even seem to be meaningfully distinct from something like culture jamming or détournement. The second source is particularly weak as it doesn't even really provide anthing other than a definition on a defunct right-wing blog with very little information or further context. Iostn (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles

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

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my life depends on this article staying i will suffer if you delete google giggles wikipedia page 89.64.44.164 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No 208.75.175.44 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this is notable enough online to keep. Especially as long as short form content platforms exist online. Limedin32 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMP (streamer collective)

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

most of the notable stuff are about a member of the group, not the group itself. the only significant coverage about the group are from the tubefilter article, the rest are mainly about kai cenat. Http iosue (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Anything potentially notable sources about the group seem to be focus on Kai Cenat. Delete per GNG and lack of group notability notability (WP:NOTINHERITED)Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you go through the sources they have coverage of each of the amp members and if you search each of the amp members each one of them is notable. Momentoftrue (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and television

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

Vanity article with deminimis view (several hundred a month) that is more like reflection. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, and Internet. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pageviews are not relevant in determining suitability for Wikipedia. And if the article is poorly written, that's reason for a rewrite, not a deletion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except.. we already have social media and television. This article is a vanity article with no clear merit. Graywalls (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whose vanity? Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article as in spammy filler material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Graywalls. Vanity is not spam as such, it's the notion that "I'm so important that I need a Wikipedia article". Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but boy does this need a rewrite. I think it's talking about the effect of social media and television, but this is all over the place. I'd maybe sent it to !draft, but it's an old article, not sure anyone would pick it up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are plenty of sources, this topic fails the second test of WP:GNG: material not being excluded under WP:NOT. This violates WP:NOESSAY and is a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While I'm sure someone could write an encyclopedic treatment of this topic, this ain't it, and would require such extensive revision that WP:DINC doesn't apply and WP:TNT does. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we should generally be pretty reluctant to invoke WP:TNT, but this is over the bar for me, basically per Dclemens1971. I think a related issue is that people have interpreted the scope as "anything I can think of involving the intersection between social media and television", which isn't really a coherent topic for an article (there's a reason titles like this are discouraged). If this is deleted, it'd be best recreated as multiple articles with narrower scopes (we already have Social television, and maybe Effects of social media on television ratings would be a good addition). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep of move to draft, AFD is not cleanup, and any editor can clear out the essayish stuff. Articles about the documented interrelationship between related fields are permissible. BD2412 T 04:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dclemens1971 and Extraordinary Writ's assessments, and WP:NOTESSAY. This article is a mess and sources addressing the topic should be used in more focused articles. MidnightMayhem 13:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeProtect

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

Fails WP:NORG. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources from The Guardian and The Independent seem enough to estabilishes WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added additional coverage from UNICEF and the World Economic Forum (both WP:RS). Alongside existing sources from The Guardian, The Independent, and a UK government publication, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs