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.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Internet[edit]

Ripple20[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Awasthi[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology, Internet, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology, Internet, and Uttar Pradesh. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this subject is notable under WP:NBIO from anywhere and it's references seem to be unreliable to me but I think article is only creating for a purpose of conflict of Interest. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє], 01:37, 28 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]

Radio Jupiter[edit]

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

AFC draft moved to mainspace by author. Sources don't show notability, redirect to Radio Caroline? IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I don't think Radio Caroline is the right answer. I think this requires work to show notability, since kt fails WP:NCORP currently. Draft space is a place to work with little pressure 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - This article does not speak for itself. It does not explain to a reader why the station is notable, and Wikipedia is written for the readers. This has been a contested draftify, so if this article is draftified here, it may not be moved back to article space except via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To anyone in 2024, this is a bog-standard Internet oldies station run by who are now older personnel. This is no different from a known commercial radio station keeping an older staff member on Saturday mornings for listener goodwill so they don't get 'Cruel megabroadcaster fires innocent DJ for being too old' headlines. The N for Radio Caroline cannot extend to something that was created well after its existence ended as a nostalgia appeal. Nate • (chatter) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate - my thoughts exactly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with no coverage in RS. This is a different Radio Jupiter [1], nothing else found. I don't think the redirect as suggested would help. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [2] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WestNet Wireless[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Yotta[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Oregon. IgelRM (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Companies, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebGain[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udutu[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. ~Bluecrystal004^{(talk · contribs)} 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevow[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tomar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, Engineering, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources don't show notability. I would say redirect to Studio Yotta, but that doesn't look notable either. IgelRM (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant roles in any major productions. "Member of the Year Tanky Award" is not a notable award. Also unlike the user said above, IMDB is not an acceptable source in Wikipedia, see WP:IMDB. --Mika1h (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianus Warmenhoven[edit]

(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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Websites, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Speech Prof[edit]

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

A search returned only primary sources; I could not find any evidence that he meets GNG. JSFarman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's not a useful source in the article for notability with some blatantly unreliable such as LinkedIn, Bored Panda and The Social Strategy which is an influencer agency. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a good faith, i can see the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltPees (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC still requires reliable independent secondary sources with non-trivial coverage which is not met. S0091 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayathri Vivekanandan —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only Google News results are for the same event + one paragraph for a different event, and I don't think the outlets are reliable either. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A community college instructor is extremely unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and we have no independent evidence that he even is a community college instructor, leaving only WP:GNG as a possibility. But dubiously-reliable coverage of a single event isn't good enough for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indications of notability for GNG or PROF. Only sources I could find are trivial or primary, and it's difficult to nail down anything about this person that is actually reliable even when it comes to fact-of statements. nf utvol (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiowv[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clear friend a ^💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
• CNN
• American Songwriter
• Variety
• The Atlantic
• The Tennessean
• Billboard
• Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
• News Corp Australia
Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.

Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).

Clear friend a ^💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.

Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.

You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.

Snarky remarks aren't helping.

Clear friend a ^💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic article^[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»

Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note.XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.

Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.

Clear friend a ^💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article now includes two WP:INDEPTH refs which are 100% exclusively only about Radiowv.^[2]^[3] XavierItzm (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These latter is a regional paper. See WP:AUD. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [3] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.

While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.

The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing: Rolling Stone, in an article authored by blue-linked David Browne (journalist) sez: «RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia [...] Around five years ago, Riffe co-founded RadioWV, the YouTube channel devoted to the type of woodsy, unadorned country songs [...] When Riffe heard [...he...] wanted to film Anthony singing for RadioWV [...] 85 million views [on RadioWV], compared with the roughly 100,000 maximum of most RadioWV posts [...] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records». Now, the problem with this Rolling Stone article is that it only mentions RadioWV in passing 5 times, telling us what it is, what it does, its geographic area of sourcing, its date of founding, its founder, its musical style, how it came across its biggest star, how many people watch its average videos and some of its greatest hits, some of its "alumni", and which labels some of the RadioWV alumni have signed up with.^[1] So definitively this article is not the best sourcing. For that you would have to look at the two articles cited above, which are both WP:INDEPTH articles written solely and exclusively about RadioWV: ^[2]^[3]. Those would be your WP:THREE, leaving out, of course, CNN, American Songwriter, Billboard, SFGate, etc., which are among the 18 refs in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ DAVID BROWNE (17 November 2023). "Oliver Anthony Became a Symbol of Populist Rage. The Truth Is More Complex". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 16 May 2024. RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia […] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records
^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

Instagram face[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, Medicine, Technology, and Internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [4] and [5], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 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]

It definitely is a topic. [6] [7] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women.
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Thriley. 12u (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For clearing up the remaining issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues that cannot be fixed through normal editing? If we send it to draft it risks being pruned after inactivity which would amount to backdoor deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources news search at the top and you'll see plenty of reliable sources give this significant coverage. https://www.wired.com/story/goopcore-body-horror-age-of-instagram-face/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5c237a34-7a47-4deb-a5b4-a23e77cc88f7 etc. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 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]

Throne Wishlist[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 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]

Danila Kashin[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and California. 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]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shane Dawson: Certainly some major publications with news articles on him (People, Business Insider, Cosmopolitan), but only in his relation to Shane Dawson. It is a highly likely search term that can be redirected and merged. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw some really prestigious articles but all mentioning the subject as the partner of Shane Dawson. I think a merge makes perfect sense in this case. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:08, 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!} 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism[edit]

(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]

DayxDay[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 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]

Redirect to Zella Day: per nomination. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LAMP (software bundle) and redirect those that relate to AMP variants to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants. As HA has said, this article does not make any meaningful comparisons, so I don't see any objections against its inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere. I'm also pretty sure that we can find reliable sources that tell us these softwares are *AMP stacks for that platform.
After merging, redirects without mention can go through G8 or RfD later. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 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]

Yuno Miles[edit]

(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]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [8], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) user indef-blocked for disruption on AFD —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		One example with only one mention	✘ No
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	✘ 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}}.

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:
- [9] from Ones to Watch: Site with music industry backing (Live Nation Entertainment). Not sure about their editorial standards — couldn't find anything about it on RSN or RSP.
- [10] from TheNeedleDrop: may or may not count based on your reading of RSP
- [11]: got played on the nationally-televised The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper	Was about the rapper	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.	Blog, equally advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles	An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times.	Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP.	Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE	Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs.	The show is reliable and notable as well.	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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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: [12] 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]

Keep. Good sources are pretty scarce right now, but he did get reviewed on RapReviews and namechecked on Pitchfork. Close enough. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew[edit]

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

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
Sources
1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."
2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 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 [13]. 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]

Rahaman Abiola[edit]

(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]

[1] Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]

[2] Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

[newspaper-3] Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

[RS-4] DAVID BROWNE (17 November 2023). "Oliver Anthony Became a Symbol of Populist Rage. The Truth Is More Complex". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 16 May 2024. RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia […] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records

[5] Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

[newspaper-6] Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]