Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:27, 23 September 2024

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

200 Plus

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the sources contain passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything online that could be utilised. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Sports, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't be opposed to a draftify as an alternative to deletion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources, and aside from the Producey Podcasts source, the only sources on the page that might be argued to count as "reliable" focus entirely on a single incident (and don't really talk about the podcast). I don't think draftifying is a good solution given that there don't appear to be any RS at all. At the very least, it falls under TOOSOON, but it's likely that it will never pass the GNG. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Dimitrov

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no reason that this would pass WP:GNG, as was decided at it's last deletion discussion. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no dated contributions since the last AfD with a quite weak assertion of notability here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Kick channels

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [1] [2] [3]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny (webcomic)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, Internet, Websites, United Kingdom, and Wales. toweli (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best coverage I could find is a brief review on "thewebcomiclist.com", which is not an RS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbrella

AfDs for this article:

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

While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Webcomics, Organizations, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statista

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

This company churns out many dubious "statistics" with questionable sourcing. As the tags indicate, the article itself fails WP:NPOV and reads like an advertisement. There is little evidence of notability. LinkLightRailFan (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mathematics. LinkLightRailFan (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Regarding notability: Chefwechsel im Reich der Daten, FAZ IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This website is used as a reference in 2,447 articles and is listed on WP:RSPS as 'generally unreliable'.[4] Orange sticker (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs some improvement re WP:NPOV but there is WP:SIGCOV available - they've been working alongside Time Magazine [5], Financial Times [6], Forbes, Newsweek and CNBC recently, though I'm not sure if this coverage would be classed as independent, but these reports have also received secondary coverage. Orange sticker (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([7]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([8]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

AfDs for this article:

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

This streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Internet, Japan, and Canada. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

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

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Found lots of coverage via ProQuest (New Scientist, The Village Voice, New York Times, etc.). Started adding to the article which was in poor shape, was definitely worth fixing, and could still use further improvement. @Star Mississippi: Let me know if that's enough for now but anyway ProQuest is the place to look. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.рус

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

No good sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article literally says, twice, that there is a lack of information for use in writing about it.. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many references exist in the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/.%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81 or ru:.рус That article also includes a detail chronology of the top-level domain. Once the information in the Russian article is added to this one, notability should be clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the russian article, a large majority of the sources are from icann, which is not what I would describe as independent third-party coverage congruent with WP:GNG Sohom (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say it's a plurality. There's usable sources like CNews, RIA Novotsi, and Lenta.ru. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Dudes

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

Nominating because I do not believe it fits WP:GNG. TheHatster (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator has not evaluated the sources already existing in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems at least two very good sources have mentions of it, which is close enough to call it notable. I have some pity on this, as it seems like a bit of internet arcana that should be noted somewhere. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Bluethricecreamman it's a shame that there isn't better resources for these kind of articles. But it does have just enough to be notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flirtini (app)

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

This appears to be an advertisement for the app and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That article is a massive copyright violation. I removed 11 copyvios and it might look bad for that reason. I was honestly unsure if G11 or G12 was valable here, and there are other probable copyvios, see Talk:Flirtini (app). Would like if an admin or a more experienced editor could step in. win8x (talking | spying) 01:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment additional work with the links and the report now does not contain any copyright violations.

Also, quotes from articles were rewritten to avoid promotional writing style. Stia Pochotnaya (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure looks better now. Thank you. win8x (talking | spying) 22:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what should be removed to avoid this impression? Stia Pochotnaya (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De General

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

Aside the drug traffic of a thing. I don't see any WP:GNG on this comedian. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per the controversy to make it look like his notable. Other source are interviews and while reading further on the news I had to find out that per the content on the newspaper that he was associated with the journalist per ref2 so therefore not independent. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am conscious of WP:BIGNUMBER but I see he has 5,500,000 followers on Facebook and 375,000 on YouTube so sources may exist? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian skit makers are well good at buying social media engagement from third party site especially when being paid for an endorsement they try to package their life for more deals. Meanwhile all this platform also support sponsored features like promotion of page, post and all that to generate more engagement. That doesn’t still qualify WP:GNG. That is why most of this people their source come from interviews ( associating with the journalist ) which can’t be no longer independent. You can see User:Celestina007#Analysis on "Nigerian sources" to have more idea about Nigerian ways. If they were more stories like the one of the drug trafficking I would have count him as a notable per Wikipedia guideline but relying on their followers it’s a weak point. Your response are still welcomed. Gabriel (……?) 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De General Did you read this? How is this an interview? If they are seeking for interview, then why was news about their drug traffick published online? All the sources are used are from reliable newspapers in Nigeria Tesleemah (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comedian is notable per WP:Notable as they have independent sources, the controversy were also written in a neutral manner and I don't see a problem with that. I also added the stub template which means the article can be expanded as more sources come up. But for now, they are ok to stand on Wikipedia.Tesleemah (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article doesn’t mean they can’t be AFD. I am judging from the current situation as it is on the main space. People like De General it is only when they cause trouble they gain the newspaper attention that is why he gained one from the drug trafficking which passes independent source & significant. Aside that is there any other source you wanna provide that is independent and significant to proof notability. We can’t just call someone is notable all because they are famous. Gabriel (……?) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find how they are related to the journalist here or am I missing something? If he truly want them to write for him, how come some news outlets published his negative news? Tesleemah (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna know if you are missing something you can read the article from the link above I dropped earlier which directs to Celestina007. If you can provide 3 to 4 negativity then I will withdraw the AFD or any notable award won by the comedian from reliable source. Gabriel (……?) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and I didn't see where all newspapers are to be condemned, rather he suggested these articles should be vetted. For the negativity I added up to 5 references under the controversy. In fact, going online now, I saw more of the news about his drug trafficking. Tesleemah (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable newspaper are not to be condemned. Nobody says so. Meanwhile aside the drug trafficking you haven’t said anything than that to proof notability. The subject it’s just a Too soon and you saying more future sources are coming up, who knows?. We can’t vouch for any subject progress. Except you have a close connection with the subject then a rethink will be considered. Gabriel (……?) 21:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already declared on my userpage I don't have close relation with any of the authors I write about nor do I write on behalf of any employer or organisation. I will not appreciate being connected otherwise. Kind regards Tesleemah (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This sufficiently passes GNG, he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. The sources [addresses] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I also do not smell any COI or sponsored contents going on, sources seem natural. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Delete: On further checks, this is all centred on WP:BLP1E. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have already checked the sources, unless there are new sources I can’t see, this entry is sourced to interviews and the routine coverages surrounding his arrest. Best, Reading of Beans 13:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although centered WP:UNDUELY on his arrest by NDLEA, I disagree with Gabriel's statement, that "Nigerians are usually known for buying followers". We all know that he is a celebrity but haven't received mainstream content review and WP:SIGCOV. Like other comedians, it's usually few coverages atleast to meet WP:ENT. Bearing above as well as WP:BIG, I wouldn't oppose having this article as a redirect to List of Nigerian comedians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject would have been unlikely to come to media notice without the drug bust and conviction..WP:BLP1E and fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCarePro

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

I'm not seeing much evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Medicine, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example you chose is something of an exception. It is a BLP issue and not a notability issue. Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the obvious BLP issues, any Chris Chan article might qualify for a WP:G10 deletion even. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Bad example I suppose. Macxcxz (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the Snickers dick vein probably should not have its own page per WP:NOPAGE despite reliable source coverage. However, the bar for inclusion of individuals does not require them to be responsible for multiple things that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only significant coverage of them and/or their work in reliable sources. For example, Junlper's suspension would not meet WP:NEVENT and should not have its own page, but the reliable sources that did cover it lend to her own notability. The latest article discussing her suspension in any amount of depth was NBC in January 2024. Since she went viral in February 2022 for the goblin mode tweet, that is almost two years of reliable source coverage, which seems enough to avoid deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person is not notable. I agree with the reasoning of nomination. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider is marked as generally reliable for culture topics such as this one at WP:RSP. The Focus/Forbes contributor sources have now been removed, and the tweets are only used when the tweets are discussed in the article or under acceptable WP:BLPSELFPUB purposes. The guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA for Outlook India is primarily about hidden content, which is almost certainly not the case here, though the article subject is only mentioned in passingare multiple other sources that are far more reliable and in-depth. The previous deletion discussion happened amidst her ongoing controversy over the Twitter ban and seemed to indicate that she was indifferent about the page staying. Given that things have quieted down for her since then, do you have an updated statement from her on this? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A random shitposter on Twitter should not get a Wikipedia article. This is the very definition of non-notable. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: non-notable person, all sources are either unreliable or interviews (which usually aren't counted as references), article is written like a personal blog or a Wikipedia parody. The person has done nothing to be included in an online encyclopedia. Necatorina (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the sourcing in my comment below, but in respect to interviews from reliable sources, it depends on factors such as the split between interview/non-interview content (i.e. a detailed introductory section vs. jumping straight to questions) and how probing the questions are (i.e. factchecking vs. softballs). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject is non notable and is article is just riding off the "goblin mode" thing Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.

With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet ~~WP:SIGCOV~~WP:BASIC.

As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I'd raise an eyebrow over a third nomination in a year but the first two were misfires so it is fair enough to raise it again. That said, I think Patar knight has it right. She makes it over the line for Notability. There are multiple sources covering her for multiple things. Yes, some of those things are silly but that's not what matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debangshu Bhattacharya

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

No inherent notability here. Subject fails WP:NPOL, and I've checked the cited sources, none could satisfy WP:GNG criteria. The regular WP:ROTM sources we get during election periods. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Sohom Datta: who reviewed and @Toweli: who previously redirected to Trinamool Congress said that the accepted version was better improved than that of earlier version before redirected.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. The subject is not a major political figure and has not held international, national, or state/province–wide office. Subject was a contestant from West Bengal representing All India Trinamool Congress political party in Lok Sabha Elections 2024 from Tamluk and lost. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:THREE, If you kindly read its talk page that I provided certain sources that may pass WP:SIRS, following which the draft was accepted. Not always it is necessary to pass per NPOL case. I can even explain further if requested. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page, Source 2 is from NDTV News Desk with no byline, probably a routine article. Source 7 and 4 are not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I advise to draftify the page for now. Any new development will take place persisting to GNG criteria, that it seems fit for. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and RangersRus. Searching in English and Bengali (দেবাংশু ভট্টাচার্য), I can find only routine coverage of him as a candidate, not the sort of significant coverage as a politician that would meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Over the past week there's been a gossipy story in the Bengali press about him supposedly insulting someone online, but that's WP:BLP1E at best. I oppose draftifying in this case, since he last ran for office seven months ago, and isn't on the cusp of getting elected. If he does win an election, then WP:REFUND can be used to recover any content worth including in the new article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Han Jiet

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

This biography of a Malaysian YouTuber fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are tabloid coverage of his engagement (excluded for notability per WP:SBST) and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I couldn't find any other qualifying WP:SIGCOV in my WP:BEFORE search, but given the language barrier happy to revise my opinion if SIGCOV is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psephos

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

The article unfortunately doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG I was unable to find anything in a google search. A few results came back in a Google Scholar search but all the result I could see were onty citations and therefore did not provide significant coverage on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Politics, Internet, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this non-notable archive of election results, it is mentioned in one source (duke University, seems to be a fragment of ??). In the EL's there is a link to the archive creator's personal blog. Cannot find enough to establish notability per GNG. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ this is used as a reference in at least 300 Wikipedia articles. [9] and [10] are library directories that refer to this source. The sourcing isn't as good as I would like, ~~but my !vote is keep~~. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psephos is only a marginally reliable source, due to Carr being a subject matter expert. I don't think it being used as a reference on Wikipedia is a good argument for keep, and neither is the fact that Psephos is in several libraries. Steelkamp (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking to see if there might be a case that Adam Carr is notable. But all I found was Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Adam_Carr. After further review, there isn't enough here for a keep vote. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable entity on its own, with no reliable sources. The editing spirit (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Let the article incubate in draftspaceEEverest 8848 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per a lack of WP:RS and a failure of WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Fever 2: Primal Fury

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

I initially PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable series. The article is completely unsourced, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage in reliable sources at all. The only biggest claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. Fails the WP:GNG." It was later de-proded with the reasoning of "At least consider a redirect, this being a sequel". However, I can find no article on the film that this series is a sequel to, so there is no eligible Redirect target that I can come up with. So, I am sending it to AFD with the same rationale as the original PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and New Zealand. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In fact, I did not find anything about the two movies online. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it is unclear what it is a sequel to. The only Google search result is a webcomic forum that has broken Youtube links. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article says it's a sequel to 48Hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz No, 48Hours is the film jam in which the first film was created. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, 48Hours is a New Zealand short film competition that the original movie was created for, not the name of the first movie. This article later states that the original film was just called "Jungle Fever" (which, of course, is unrelated to the actual theatrical Jungle Fever film). Also, despite this article claiming that the original was an "award winning" 48hours film, it is not listed on the competition's article as having won anything. Rorshacma (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other commenters. There’s next to nothing about this movie or the movie it is a sequel to online and even the few crappy sources that do exist disagree on what it is, with some calling it a movie and others a TV series. The article itself is also of very poor quality and seems to have been at least partly copy pasted from its short themoviedb.org entry. Archimedes157 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly does not meet notability criteria. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. I agree with all the other Delete votes here and without sources it is very unclear what sequel is this of and this definitely has nothing to do with Jungle Fever film. RangersRus (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Audacity to Podcast

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

The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:NPODCAST. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Popular culture, Technology, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tagged for multiple notability issues since 2021. Nothing better.Esthersp (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast received two awards and was a major factor in its host's being inducted into the Podcast Hall of Fame.

Additional notability and citations added. 8thNote (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage I find is promo, "how to start a podcast" and the like. Source 5 is a RS per Cite Highlighter, but I can't open a full version and it's only one source anyway... We don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas Maynas

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

not reliable article per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt toast theory

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable non-notable ephemeral Tik-Tok dreck. Perhaps worth a sentence elsewhere…maybe a slang dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... regretfully. It has multiple sources with WP:SIGCOV extending across months of coverage. Not seeing a policy based rationale for deleting this. Unfortunately social media trends often create articles of this type.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I was intending to nominate it to AfD, saw it was already done. WP:10YT and WP:NOPAGE apply here. Significant coverage, specially in short news articles about a flash-in-pan phenomenon doesn't necessarily mean that a subject must have a page. It can be better covered in a sentence in any of the many articles on very similar cultural concepts, already listed in the "see also" section or at the top. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Behavioural science, Engineering, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have doubts about the topic's notability. It really looks to me like there was just one TikTok post that managed to inspire several copycat pop psychology articles on various websites for a couple of months. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you make a case that all of these articles are from content farms, you are essentially just reaffirming the subject's notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would the article in The Indian Express negate my whole argument? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia, and a local station, yes. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll admit I don't actually know how the news cycle operates in those publications. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that we believe major publications until shown evidence of lack of editorial oversight. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. What are they saying that we're supposed to believe? That there've been a handful of posts on social media about burnt toast? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and it says that "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a valid argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blessing in disguise per TryK. Meets SIGCOV, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page, and like I mentioned in the discussion to merge it into Blessing in disguise, I don't think that it belongs there either. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have only discussed why it does not belong on the Silver lining page, which I agree with; you haven't argued why Blessing in disguise is unsuitable.

(@Feed Me Your Skin, welcome to AfD! In case you didn't know, these discussions don't give you notifications. Click on the star on the top of the page and install User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like nonsensical mysticism, while burning my toast might prevent me from being hit by a falling meteor, it's equally possible that not burning my toast would also save me, so this theory could be punctured by someone with two brain cells of common sense to rub together. It has only been circulated in clickbait publications, and doesn't feel similar enough to "blessing in disguise". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are valid arguments against retaining here, but as said above, there are many RSs that SIGCOV the subject. Also, while I sympathize with criticism of the idea, the idea is not a deletion argument and goes under WP:NOTFORUM. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the articles are clearly clickbait so I would disagree that they are "reliable sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you don't like the headlines. How does that have any bearing on the fact that The Indian Express, Glamour, HuffPost, Grazia~~, and a local station~~ (actually, maybe scratch the local station that did not fact check a sponsorship, but what about the rest?) are reliable sources? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the Merge argument? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that user just wants to keep it. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu - I agree that it's a type of sliver lining. I can't say I agree with merging it though. It has enough coverage to stay. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or in the alternative, merge to Blessing in disguise. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigcov is not achieved. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments here for Deletion, Keeping and Merging with two different Merge target articles suggested. Remember this is a discussion about the notability of an article subject, let's maintain civility. Some editors just want to present their argument and not get into a debate about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It seems that the topic does strictly satisfy SigCov, but per @TryKid and @Clarinetguy097's arguments I do not believe it is suitable for its own article. I think merger would be the best way to maintain the core information without puffing a topic out of proportion. Lenny Marks (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ As another user noted, it's an ephemeral TikTok trend, and I don't believe the evidence for notability is very strong. Most of the sources just assert that the original post went viral (or something to that effect), with a few referencing other isolated social media posts or making similar vague claims about "people" applying the burnt toast theory to an aviation accident. Also, I don't see a reason for merging into "Silver lining" or "Blessing in disguise." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blessing in disguise covers basically the same thing, and some sources also connect the two. I don't see how the secondary sources' covering the same primary source has any bearing on the notability, though your argument above of this being a brief burst is still valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not notable, there's no good reason to move the content into another article. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is one of the alternatives to deletion. Not every part of a page has to be notable; only the main subject has to be. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge two or three sentences with Blessing in disguise#Related phrases. It's the same concept, there's really not much of substance in Burnt toast theory, and no-one will talk about this in 10 years (WP:10YT). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monument Mythos

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been previously deleted.... when? Has been previously kept....Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:The_Monument_Mythos... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E. 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's is misleading. The decision to keep the draft does not matter at all in either direction. —Alalch E. 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. The MfD. yikes. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 13:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 14:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if, as one of the contributors to the page, you could find time to explain why you think deletion is not necessary. Thank you in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 (pinging you to increase chances you read this). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Anyway, this has etiquette enough sources and there are still sources to be added. It survived MfD (Even after one very...passionate user wanted it gone). So i'd like to keep it. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 12:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all there is [11] for sourcing and it's not enough. Rest of what's used is marginally reliable sources per Source Highlighter, so not much of anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage, see GNews please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: significant coverage in reliable sources includes Collider (twice) but also The Gamer among other things and I would consider https://fnewsmagazine.com/2022/01/ghosts-in-the-machine-the-star-spangled-monsters-of-mister-manticores-the-monument-mythos/ and the article in the The Signal perfectly acceptable sources too.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find F Newsmagazine to be a very good, professional-level, outlet in the areas of culture and critique of visual media. —Alalch E. 14:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any substantial, reliable sources for this. Most of what is here are student publications, including F Newsmagazine, which is a student publication of the Arts Institute of Chicago. The coverage in Collider and The Gamer is limited to a few paragraphs in a page with many other entries, and formulaic in style. AKA: promotional. Searching turns up lots of TikTok and other bits, none which have any content about the "show". Lamona (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sudent or college newspapers, but high-quality (and award-winning, for one of them) reliable ones. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + add further improvements - shJunpei :3 12:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page puts some major parts of the Monument Mythos right into the first segment. There should be an area marked "Plot" for that. - shJunpei :3 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The foreign-language articles behind the interwiki links look completely alright from a sources+notability perspective. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Goa. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – news coverage appears to be only connected to her death. As tragic as that event was, WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:BLP1E applies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just from a quick search, appears across all major news media in country, both regarding death and various controversies. --Soman (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other XfDs

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Internet==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/200_Plus}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Dimitrov_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Kick channels}}

Revision as of 04:27, 23 September 2024

Internet

Other XfDs

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.