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

Quest It (Service Marketplace)

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

article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies, it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Most references come from local and affiliated sources with limited in-depth coverage and content mainly highlights local achievements without significant impact. Nxcrypto Message 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Alan Peterson

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Uses Ballotpedia almost entirely as a singular source, and what information isn't sourced to it uses thegreenpapers.com, which appears to be no more useful in providing notability than Ballotpedia. Google returns no news articles, sans a couple providing voting results (although I can't even find him on these) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. The sources used are not reliable to pass notability guidelines. Search result failed to turn up any useful failing WP:GNG. A mere announcement of a presidential run does not bring notability by default. Mekomo (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet up Artiste notability guide as stated above, weavil words and promotional statements are flying around the article too. Tesleemah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risk & Compliance Portal

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

Purely promotional and no establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Internet, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is promotional with nothing to pass notability. Fails WP:NORG. I support nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search and sources provided are not reliably sufficient. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Woolverton

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

Run-of-the-mill CEO who is not notable beyond his company, Halo Top Creamery. Most sources cited in the article are focused on the "healthy" quality of the ice cream and the strategy of the brand's viral marketing. I also have concerns about the depth and content of some of the cited articles from business news publications (e.g., Business Insider, Fast Company, and Entrepreneur) per WP:CORPDEPTH and whether they can be considered significant coverage (SIGCOV) of the company. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Internet, and California. Bridget (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culturenet Cymru

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

Culturenet Cymru was established as a company within the National Library of Wales for the purpose of creating a body that Welsh Government could fund outside of the NLW sponsorship arrangement, with a remit to develop online resources. The company was based in NLW, all the directors and officers were NLW staff, and the employees were subject to NLW regulations. The arrangement was wound up in 2016 and all of the projects were transferred directly into NLW. It was never independently notable, generating a couple of news articles (that I cannot now find) only when one employee, whose contract was terminated, alleged he had fixed an online poll they ran. That coverage did not explore the nature of the company, and my recollection is that the news media were directed to NLW itself. As such this is not notable and does not meet WP:NCORP. I was going to redirect to the NLW page but it is not mentioned there, and I do not feel a mention of the company is due there. Thus a redirect is not possible (no mention on the target page). I am therefore nominating here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Companies, Popular culture, and Internet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, as I cannot find any significant coverage in independent sources. Redirect to 100 Welsh Heroes, its one notable project, where Culturenet Cymbru is briefly described (and is an article that has survived AfD). Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for information about this company on every search engine but found nothing. I don’t believe it is notable or meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

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

The sources do not provide sufficient significance to justify an independent article. News articles emphasize "concise promotional" content. While the article weakly meets WP:BIO standards, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He very obviously does not pass WP:PROF; the question is whether the in-depth sources about him are independent enough and reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. Indian news sources are rife with paid promotion per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and I suspect that some or most of the sources here have that issue. The first two (Patrika and News18) are obviously both taken from the same press release, so do not count as independent of each other and maybe not reliable and independent of the subject. India Today is specifically warned about in WP:RSP and our article has no depth of content about the subject. That leaves only the Free Press Journal, about which I know nothing, but whose writing appears more hagiographic than factual or informative. I don't find any of these convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thafnine

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [1] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to Draftspace.Blethering Scot 21:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not while this discussion remains open, you don't. We have the option of draftifying it as the conclusion to this discussion, but the process has to run its course first and you can't cut it short by moving the page into draft before the discussion has been closed through the proper process. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no need for the pointy reply. The article had already been moved by the creator, to an incorrect draft space title of User:Thafnine. As this was not a username it was requested to be deleted by myself and sorted by another admin. I moved it properly to draft space as the article could not sit in a fake user space. Two admins have already been involved, which absolutely highlights the principle of AGF. Blethering Scot 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thafnine

– – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, as the creator of this article, I am wondering if I can pull this article back into my sandbox instead of it being fully deleted? I cannot find any other secondary sources or references that can help with the notability of this article, but due to this article being for the Wiki Education program that I am a part of for my college, I am wondering if I could simply pull this article back to my sandbox so that my professor can still see it and grade it as is. Sebastian-SolaceFish (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Noss

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources 1, 2, 3 cannot establish the subject's Notability. The 4th source is a YouTube link and the last source is a news coverage Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability for this internet person. Coverage I find is about him selling shares or doing other non-notable business things - in.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/tucows-ceo-elliot-noss-sells-over-28k-worth-of-company-stock-93CH-4443482, which is routine. That site is black listed, so not a RS at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot has been called to testify as a subject matter expert on telecom in Canada multiple times, reflecting his notability in the space as an internet person.

2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKfd5oS8Lg

2020: https://www.cpac.ca/crtc-hearings/episode/february-19-2020--tucows-inc?id=01140742-9b74-47fc-ac43-98bc080e95be 2607:FEA8:F862:E020:74E8:9BBD:4392:1EB5 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional source and example of being a witness for Canadian government. https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/41-1/CC11/meeting-7/evidence 2607:FEA8:F862:E020:39BC:F7BC:8517:4EE3 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 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.

Net Applications

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

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing OP meant per NCORP. I agree with that, but there is enough due weight coverage for the company's browser usage data to merge the criticism section into Usage share of web browsers#Differences in measurement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested in the prior comment seems fine. I'm ok with a brief mention there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ratnahastin. A lot of WP: CONTENTFORKING is there in article. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK actually.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Television, Technology, Aviation, Internet, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of redundant content fork here. Adani Enterprises is the largest company within the much broader Adani Group. In its own right, Adani Enterprises meets WP:LISTED as it is part of the NIFTY 50 index of the 50 largest Indian companies and has received significant coverage in international media [2], Indian media [3], and analyst reports [4] independent of the parent. This page appears to have passed the WP:AFC review legitimately in 2021. Concerns about paid edits should be addressed by cleaning up the problematic content, instead of deleting pages on otherwise highly notable topics. Yuvaank (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adani Group: as an WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Yuvaank, Clrealy meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Also already survived from previous AfD. Vofavy (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they don't say why do we need an "Adani Enterprises" when we have Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure content fork especially when we already have an article on Adani Group. Dympies (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, i can't believe how can someone mark such notable companies for deletion. I mean on what ground? Adani is one of the most notable companies in India, easily passes WP:NCORP. See the notices and warnings on nominator's talk page which has been deleted by the user. B-Factor (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ASPERSIONS. Dympies (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A better and deeper source evaluation is needed on the presented ones. Kindly note that keep !votes should provide proper rationale supported by reliable sources denoting notability and SIGCOV. Additionally, kindly address the need of the article when another similarly titled article already exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to address Dympies's comment above which seems to suggest we discount the sources presented by me on the basis of WP:NEWSORGINDIA: The Financial Times is not even an Indian news organization to begin with and is widely-regarded as one of the highest-quality sources for business-related topics. The Ken is pretty credible too as there is no evidence of paid reporting by them. The HDFC Securities analyst report satisfies WP:LISTED. These sources, along with it being part of NIFTY 50, establish this company's notability independent of the parent group umbrella. It is worth considering WP:SIZE of the Adani Group page before advocating for a merge/redirect. I'm also yet to see any evidence of content fork besides sweeping assertions. Yuvaank (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a reasonable solution to deleting a bad article that is a fork of a company - but is also a real subsidiary. We don’t need articles about every subsidiary of even the largest companies. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One more article on the same topic is unnecessary. Agletarang (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trasna

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

Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. Coverage available (both in article and in WP:BEFORE search does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT -- instead, it's all a mix of primary sources, trivial mentions, press releases, niche WP:TRADES publications and coverage that would be excluded as WP:ORGTRIV. No reasonable redirect option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Almost all of the sources (in the article and that I can find) are press releases, primary sources, passing mentions and otherwise the same type of coverage we might expect for any similar small company. The number of issues with the limited references that are in place (including FV and WP:REFBOMB concerns) is also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep looks like not clearly meeting NCORP but additional sources may exist per NEXIST as the organization is notable in its nature. --25lucky (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this !vote even mean? If you think it doesn't meet WP:NCORP, then that should be a delete, right? And if you are citing WP:NEXIST, please supply the evidence of said sources. We deal with real sources, not hypothetical sources. Finally, WP:NORG/WP:NCORP does not have a criterion for an organization that is "notable in its nature." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No relevant WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was not aware of the detail in WP:CORPTRIV. If nothing else can be found it should probably be deleted, then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH may not fully meet RSP standards, even if written by a staff writer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/			✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/	Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH	Trivial coverage on funding	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/		Trivial coverage on service offerings	? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html		Trivial coverage on funding	? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/		Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet (Central Asia)

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

No refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there is a possibility of a meaningful article then I think before that, one must write a section at Internet in Kazakhstan. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into/to Internet Access and Training Program (IATP); and some content (if secondary sources are found) to specific sections such as an early history section of Internet in Kazakhstan, as Ratnahastin suggested, because Internet history as a whole is an encyclopedic topic, even if "the Central Asian Freenets" does not appear to be well-defined as a separate topic. While the IATP article itself needs proper sources, these clearly exist; academic sources for IATP are easy to find, e.g. Uni of Washington 2008 ; Advances in Library Administration and Organization 2009 ; conf proceedings 2003 ; conf proceedings 2003 . The IATP's specific use of the "Freenet" name is quite likely notable within that context. I merged the Armenia info into Telecommunications in Armenia#Dial-up. The USAID role (its own POV on its role) in early 2000s internet development in these countries is only one side of the story, but there's no point in omitting it from this encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not ready for Wikipedia main space, As meintioned there is no reliable sources SATavr (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) SATavr[reply]

Merge to IATP for the well-stated reasons given above. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Internet

Other XfDs

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