Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:18, 7 January 2025 editMiminity (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,736 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bop House.Tag: Twinkle ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:41, 7 January 2025 edit undoWcquidditch (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers133,262 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Cool (assisted)Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==Internet==		==Internet==
	<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->		<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jihad_Cool}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bop House}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Bop House}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tetr.io}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tetr.io}}

Revision as of 19:41, 7 January 2025


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

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

The result was delete‎. I am entirely discounting the nominator's opinions, but even among the other !votes there is clear consensus that there is not substantive coverage of this term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Jihad Cool

Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 7. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, Terrorism, Fashion, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Transwiki to wikitionary, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom; should be on wiktionary, if anyhere. ~Darth Stabro 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per DICDEF. I see a mix of good and terrible sources. If you take out the unreliable New York Post, Washington Times, and social media, you're left with less than a bare stub. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep (The nom is a multi-account block evader - now blocked - who is abusing AfD.) The article currently has EIGHT sources in the reference section; plus many more are available in books and papers. I would add them, but it would be ref bombing. The article does not require "serious currency" to be a notable. In fact, it's an academic concept, which rarely have serious currency. The reference to "Cool" is intentional because that is the concept at work, but it's not a term coming out of pop culture itself nor intended by part of pop culture ie. to have serious currency. This Misplaced Pages article was cited in the book Compassionate Counterterrorism (2019), so presumably our deletion here would negatively effect the academic literature on this topic. It has significant coverage in Barnhart's Never-finished Political Dictionary of the 21st Century (2016), The Future of Terrorism (2018), Committee on Homeland Security (2014). The point here is that notability does not expire, even if you believe the term never caught on. -- GreenC 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
None of those works are from reputable academic publishers. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
They are reliable sources. GNG doesn't say "source must be a reputable academic publisher", whatever that means anyway. -- GreenC 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
When you claim something is an academic concept you need to produce academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
What difference does it make to notability? None. Your creating requirements unsupported by guideline or policy. -- GreenC 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To establish consensus either way on GreenC's defence offered, which Iskander323 has replied to. Further input on this issue by other editors would be great and might allow for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Wow, this term hasn't aged well... Briefly used in the 2010's then, never went anywhere. More of a cool new word than anything notable at this point. Brief uses of the word, then nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Notability does not expire. -- GreenC 03:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I know, it wasn't notable then either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
That's an opinion, but 8 sources then, plus more later. What do you require? How about something from the Washington Post in 2009:
"They use hip-hop elements for some who relate to that." Bray said "seductive videos" gradually lure young people, building outrage over atrocities committed against Muslims. Extremist videos "play to what we call in the Muslim youth community 'jihad cool' -- a kind of machismo that this is the hip thing to do."

Something "we call in the Muslim youth community". Are you down with that community, do you know anything about it. When you don't know about something, we rely on reliable sources. And reliable sources are telling this is well known within the Muslim youth community. You can disagree, but do we trust your personal opinion, or that opinion of those within the community who use the term. See WP:SYSTEMIC. -- GreenC 16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete I took a look at GreenC's sources. The Compassionate Counterterrorism source just cites the Wiki article. As for the "significant coverage", the first of them is a dictionary entry, another of them uses the word once in a section heading but says nothing subsequently about the "jihad cool" concept, and the third is a brief mention in congressional testimony, which is not a reliable source even if it was sigcov. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the sources:
- A "Political Dictionary" is not actually a dictionary, in the sense of a regular dictionary. The author assembled a relatively small selection of terms and wrote mini essays about those terms, all of which have common themes. It's not like Websters or OED which are broad and take in everything, it's selective.
- "Compassionate Counterterrorism", I mentioned above: "This Misplaced Pages article was cited in the book", it's concerning we would damage the trail of footnotes by deleting the article making future researches ability to read the Misplaced Pages article difficult to impossible.
- The Future of Terrorism, the entire section is about this concept, why the section header is titled "Jihad Cool".
- Congressional testimony by Committee on Homeland Security. I'm curious why you think this is an unreliable source. If your answer is PRIMARY then it's not primary and even if it was primary they are not unreliable, and are permissible. -- GreenC 03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:NOTDICT is that dictionaries don't count as coverage. The Future of Terrorism source does not discuss the "Jihad Cool" concept at all. If I'm wrong, please quote me where it does. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You are correct, standard dictionaries do not demonstrate notability, but this is more like a monograph by a single author, it uses "dictionary" in its title but it's not like a normal dictionary.

The concept of Jihad Cool, as our article explains, is the use of popular culture (social media, videos, clothing etc) to make Jihadism seem fashionable and desirable to young people. This is what the book discusses. For example it says "ISIS propaganda expertly uses hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " That is the concept of Jihad Cool, and why the section is titled Jihad Cool. -- GreenC 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The source says that Isis doesn't "expertly use hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " You're quoting out of context. It says this is a misconception, and also does not support the statement that this misconception is called "Jihad Cool". So it's not usable as a source without original research. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they agree with the concept or not, they are discussing it because clearly this is a notable subject. Are you seriously suggesting the section title "Jihad Cool" is completely random and has nothing to do with section? Can you explain why they called the section "Jihad Cool"? What is a typographical error, a sort of random monkey kind of thing? -- GreenC 16:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless the source directly says what it means by "Jihad Cool", it is not usable IMV per our WP:NOR rules. Section headings don't often provide sufficient clarity of what the author means, and it's not safe to assume that everything contained in this section must qualify, or that Misplaced Pages editors can tell what does and does not. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Your making stuff up. The section clearly concerns Jihad Cool. It's titled Jihad Cool, it describes the idea exactly the same way our article does. It is sufficient for notability. -- ~ GreenC 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Article? You mean the two paragraphs? I think this is rather the point. Where you seem to see something, a lot of us just see a nothingburger. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't AfD articles because they are stubs. The book we are discussing (have you looked at it?) contains multiple pages of content that can be used to expand our article. Plus the other sources linked here, not yet in the article. You even said, "If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject." Precisely what The Future of Terrorism does, in part. -- GreenC 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be willing to change my mind if more good sources were found and added to the article. I mean, don't ref-bomb, but show me the sources. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If WP:ARS still existed ie. the core people there kicked off AfD by ugly ANI threads .. we would have no problem HEY'ing this article, working together as a team. For one person, it's a big lift of time and effort. So I can't say I will be able to do that right now. The end result of the demise of ARS was the loss of time and energy to improve articles in emergency situations with the clocking ticking.
- What I can say, sources are in the article including academic papers, Sources are in this AfD, including the Washington Post, and books. One person's improvement is another's ref bomb. AfD is not cleanup. etc.. the most important thing right now is to answer if the topic (not the article) is a notable one based on the sources.
- I'm also concerned by who initiated this AfD. Guarantee they have other accounts, and working with other editors offline. They were overly sure of themselves they could delete this article during pre-AfD discussions, not interested in discussing it. -- GreenC 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The Bop House

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect - references themselves don't seem to stand up to WP:SIGCOV, but could probably be redirected to Content house. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think a redirect would be particularly useful here, unless every non-notable content house deserves a redirect to Content house. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The majority of the sources in the article are unreliable (Know Your Meme, Urban Dictionary, WikiHow, YouTube, etc.) and furthermore do not demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tetris variants. ✗plicit 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tetr.io

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NGAME, with no independent reviews or coverage besides listacles found on this article or in my WP:BEFORE searches. Previous blank and redirects were reverted. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to List of Tetris variants. Besides what's in the article, I also found and , but it's just a lot of listicles where nobody has written anything substantial or over two paragraphs about the game. ~ A412 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Tetris variants#Unofficial games (or an anchor, given the list's length) as it was before, where the game's already mentioned. Definitely does not meet WP:NGAME per nom. (As a disclaimer, I created Tetr.io as that redirect before it became an article.) Nyakase🐈‍⬛‍ (talk • she/her) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Tetris variants. No real SIGCOV here, just listicles. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Listicles can support notability though, they just tend to lack significant coverage as is the case here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect per all. A mention at the target could be a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

RBC Direct Investing

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

Not meeting NCORP, no reliable media coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: literally no secondary sourcing to prove any notability. Could be talked about in existing articles on RBC. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per Mamani1990, and the fact that the article only discusses on event in the company's (really a operating division IMO) history. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 04:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Benedikt Johannes Hofer

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

Non-notable person. None of the sources are reliable (tiiny.site is user-generated), and I found no reliable sources online. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Germany. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
delete: previously deleted via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gaming Benni; doesn't this qualify for some speedy deletion criterion? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Needs sources that are reliable and independent. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete - cross wiki promo spam by globally locked sock farm see file here. Many times placed via the "name game" also on this language version as Benedikt Hofer, Draft:Gaming_Benni, Gaming Benni and Coden mit Benni. This sock even created a fake ai-generated user page with nonsense. Hoyanova (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

this sock puppet player is also known in dewiki, see de:Misplaced Pages:Checkuser/Anfragen/Jurist2109,_DerTischFan1111. --Mary Joanna (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software. I see clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone page, but not clear consensus against the target for a redirect, so this discussion is no bar to retargetting after appropriate discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal wiki

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wiki software with no useful salvageable value.

The section "Multi-user wiki software" lacks any useful inclusion criterion - MediaWiki (the software that this wiki runs on) does not have a "personal edition" in any reasonable sense. Yes, it's configurable enough you can use it for a lot of things, but the standard for when that would be would be entirely arbitrary. Most of the remaining entries do not have any mention of personal wikis in their article.

The section "Single-user wiki software" is almost entirely duplicated at List of wiki software#Personal wiki software.

The rest of this article is just a trivial definition of the concept - "a personal wiki is a wiki for personal use". And that's it. Delete or redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software (since an individual instance of a personal wiki is by definition a complete nonentity with no existence outside of that of its sole user the software is the only significant bit). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There is probably broader cleanup work needed in the broader area of: Personal wiki, Personal information manager, Personal knowledge base, Personal knowledge management, and the inevitable Digital garden. Presumably some or all of these are the same concept with terminology changing over time. Brandon (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Valuable information with multiple references. Dujo (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
So no actual refutation to my multi-paragraph AfD rationale? Just WP:VALUABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. The mere existence of little blue clickly linky numbers from over a decade ago can't stop this from being cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software as suggested in the nomination. I agree with everything in the nomination rationale, and I can’t find sufficient sourcing to rework the article so that it isn’t a redundant fork. The Keep vote above contains textbook examples on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and I’m also dubious whether the Keep voter read the nomination at all. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software: The content *is* useful, enough people try to make wikis about personal topics or themselves that there clearly is an interest (hell, I've toyed with the idea myself!) but I don't think it warrants a seperate article on it without more content, and I don't think more content can realistically be added here. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus yet. Leaning towards Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I'm mildly surprised this got relisted. The only keep vote is that the article is WP: VALUABLE which should hold close to zero weight when closing the AfD. It's also not a question of whether the article has references but rather whether the article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK. All the other votes are delete / redirect, and in my past experience that generally means that the article is replaced by a redirect. Obviously, I'm biased because I !voted redirect, but even if I wasn't voting, I'd still find this unusual. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Content may be a fork of the list, but the title is more relevant to wiki, so very selective merge and redirect to wiki, which in turn links to the list of wiki software. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Editors can create a Redirect from this page title if they believe it is warranted. Liz 05:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki version history

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has absolutely no reason to exist. It's an unsourced duplicate of mw:Release notes and mw:Version lifecycle. The "notable changes" column is entirely original research. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ~ A412 08:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Those looking for the release history can just visit MediaWiki. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Looking at the 1st AfD, I would say MediaWiki was limited in 2012. It has greatly expanded since then with the dedicated wiki (and other Wiki services) easier to access. There's a detailed log of their version updates. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
MediaWiki.org has been around since 2004. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't personally feel well-versed enough to evaluate this article/AFD nomination and thus don't have an opinion on it; however, if consensus is that this article shouldn't be kept, my view is that it could be redirected to MediaWiki#History or MediaWiki#Version history as an {{R from subtopic}} (the latter of which is currently only one sentence long, but could potentially be expanded with properly-sourced content) as an alternative to deletion. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten 12:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

LABA IT Training Center

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

Non-notable company. All sources are home pages of companies they've supposedly worked with, and I found no reliable sources online. Promotional in tone and borderline G11. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nepal. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, Fails WP:NCORP. I've searched Google, No reliable sources. ~🌀 Ampil 13:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: nothing more than advertising. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy delete: wholly promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

TACTIC (web framework)

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

Seems to have been created by IP editors for promotional purposes. Tagged for notability. -- Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

delete The only verifiable notable thing about this is the size of the project in terms of lines of code, which means nothing. No independant sources can be found. I tried looking around for people asking for support (which would give an indication re: the number of users) but all i could find was their first party forums full of literal spam Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. charlotte 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Lily Phillips

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

BLP of an OnlyFans model whose claim to fame is having sex with 100 men. Coverage is all from within the past week or so and largely consists of deprecated sources and low-quality tabloids. Fails WP:N, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I would move it to draft space then and see if she gets more coverage.

I only made this page since I read about her and saw that there was a German article about her but not an English one. Laura240406 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
A draft already exists at Draft:Lily Phillips. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
ah okay then I'm also for a deletion

(btw the German Misplaced Pages's quality standards seem to be a lot worse than the English one's) Laura240406 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, utterly non-notable other than this event. ~Darth Stabro 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: see my comment Laura240406 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Changed vote, see below.--Laun chba ller 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There is already a draft that covers the main points and uses more reliable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

All five of the sources currently used in the draft are in yellow and red at WP:UPSD. I removed the three it highlighted in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete The subject is only notable for one event and there is a lack of reliable sources even regarding the sole reason for notability. Svenska356 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Article has been significantly improved by User:Launchballer and passes WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. Tayce Widdrington (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Tayce Widdrington and WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep following improvements, definitely meets WP:BASIC. – Meena • 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY and above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY Laura240406 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Nivi, Inc.

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

Appears wholly promotional and does not established WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Products, Internet, Kenya, Nigeria, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: All the sources fail WP: GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Very very promotional. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Safari Scribe 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Pure promo Megan B.... till the end of time 13:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: There are no valid sources in this article to prove any type of notability. I read them all. As others have stated, this is very promotional in nature. The only "reference" with "Nivi" in the title, has no author and is not a newspaper. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The use of AI, and ChatGPT and tele-health in particular, are upending the practice of medicine. 10/12 of the references are not about this company, but rather about this new technology. The only two sources about the company are not reliable. It's written in far too a promotional tone. The page would have to be completely re-written and sourced anew to be an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 04:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Benjamin De Almeida

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

Non-notable YouTuber. The only source is their channel, and I found no reliable sources online. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - a bundle of WP:BLP violations wrapped up in a cheerful demeanor and ready to explode. If this and that were reliable, then it could be the start of a stub. I'm not opposed to userfication, but don't hand it off to me. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Good for him that his Zoom account was deleted, but came back again, I guess, but this is not a pass of WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Simon Brea

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

Non-notable YouTuber. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none online. Large parts of the article are unreferenced. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. No meaningful media coverage. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Every single reference is to a WP:USERGEN source and no other references were found when checking. cyberdog958 10:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Clare Siobhan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, only mention in a to me seemingly reliable publication is a mention of three sentences. Red Bull source seems to be an interview, probably not intellectually independent. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV: an interview, blogs, and her own YouTube video are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Jonah Chapman

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

Sources currently cited consist of IMDb and some YouTube channels published by the subject. Searching the name alone turns up unrelated individuals; with some other specifying material added, some promotional material from an agency turns up, but nothing which would indicate notability. Seraphimblade 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Classic WP:COI! At best WP:TOOSOON, but clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC).
Delete Per nom and above, but also noting the incorrectly disclosed COI. Snowycats (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: No sources provided and fail WP:NACTOR. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ 08:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Kinu /_c 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Discounting the view of OrebroVi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked as a sock. Sandstein 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Faris Al-Hammadi

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article fails to demonstrate any proof of notability and relies heavily on sources from social media platforms such as X, Instagram, and LinkedIn, which are generally not considered reliable. The few non-social media sources included are either trivial mentions or lack the depth and significance required to establish notability.

Based on my research, and after conducting a WP:BEFORE, I could not find independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. While the individual is a social media influencer with a large following, this alone does not suffice to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone 10:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:ANYBIO / WP:CREATIVE). Available sources fail to support WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The current sourcing by the author is a major issue, but the subject seems to have relevant prominence with 750k+ followers. Per WP:BEFORE, subject also appears to be related to Hussain Al Hammadi and other UAE gov operatives. OrebroVi (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, per WP:INVALIDBIO, notability is not inherited. A subject's relationship with notable individuals or entities doesn't automatically make them notable. According to the notability guideline, notability is determined by significant, independent, and reliable coverage of the subject, not follower counts.

If you or another editor can provide reliable sources showing significant coverage, the article may be reconsidered. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Liz 06:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, including one page in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age and one paragraph in The Last Pirate's History of Doctor Who... -Mushy Yank. 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There is also a 13-page paper dedicated to the series https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505; see also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505. Please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination as your concern seems addressed. @OlifanofmrTennant. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting that the book Playing Fans reuses large portions of the paper, as confirmed by the book's acknowledgements (and a quick skimming of both sources – the paper can be viewed through Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library), so they're basically a single source. And the mention in The Last Pirate's History is a brief mention in a long list, so I wouldn't call that mention significant. Other sources in the article may contribute to notability as well, but these by themselves aren't enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I would say they are. But if you want, feel free to add Broadcast in the U.S.: Foreign TV Series Brought to America, p. 232-233. And https://collider.com/community-inspector-spacetime/ And http://braindamaged.fr/20/11/2012/web-serie-zone-inspector-spacetime/ And https://geeksofdoom.com/2014/03/12/inspector-spacetimes-untitled-web-series-needs-help-make-inspector-chronicles-movie And so on. No further comments. Still inviting the nominator to withdraw. -Mushy Yank. 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Why is Geeks of Doom reliable? And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion. The Collider source talks about it at the very end with nothing beyond "this cool thing happened and there was no season 2" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you open the books? Read the papers? Check other existing sources? -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion."=No, most of the sources I mention talk about the web series which you took for deletion, and some are "particurly in depth." So your concern that "Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV" seems totally addressed (if a page can "fail" an essay, btw). https://www.vulture.com/2012/09/not-inspector-spacetime.html (limited) https://comicbook.com/comicbook/news/communitys-inspector-spacetime-launches-his-own-untitled-webseries/ (for the history of the production) and so on. https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-inspector-chronicles-is-the-doctor-who-spoof-movie-sorta-spun-off-from-community-e844667fd8e7/ It meets the general requirements for notability even if it's only with the dedicated article and 2 of the books. Feel free to add the sources you like best to the page. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Erratum: in my first reply to myself I linked twice the same paper; the second paper I intended to link was: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814558907 -Mushy Yank. 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(noting for anyone who can't view the article through TWL) This is another article by the same author, Paul Booth. Per WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. It's also a pretty brief mention, with only one paragraph about it in a much larger paper about a broader topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Misplaced Pages is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. ~~I'll add~~I have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with user above who pointed out the event got reliable news coverage eight years after it happened, making it notable. XwycP3 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd have thought this was a SNOW KEEP by now, as we have a) transformed the article with many new sources b) demonstrated multi-year notability and c) different editors have advanced sound reasons for keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree with the nom's WP:EVENT assertion - reliable sources were citing this faux thesis years after its publication. Also, as Chiswick Chap has noted, its notability is not in doubt.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Per Reywas92's reasoning. desmay (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Aside from the possible BLP considerations (i see the person has apparently maintained a private life since and cannot be found via this article), alas this is plainly a notable event. Many news articles are still available on the event and I believe Misplaced Pages's rules mean we cover controversial events better on average.--Milowent • 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources from 2010 through 2018 shows this was not a BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. I am unimpressed by the Keep !votes from the inexperienced (canvassed?) participants. Those more familiar with our guidelines (and unaffiliated with its subject) unanimously argued for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep – The subject has 13 news articles that meet the notability criteria of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The fact that many of them are in Czech or Slovak doesn't meet they don't meet the criteria, and a search of developer forums shows the software is widely used among English speakers in any case. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep the article contains a promotional section but has reliable sources. The page would benefit from cleanup to improve its structure and neutrality. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked sock. MER-C 13:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The article has reliable sources and passes WP:COMPANY. XwycP3 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The article passes WP:SUSTAINED notability because it has 24 references going back to 2017. Sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Additionally, another editor removed the section listing the company's products, which should take care of the WP:PROMOTION concern. Schnookums123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Misplaced Pages's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Although the opening paragraph implies that the article is about a web scraping platform, in reality the article is devoted to the company. On that basis I've evaluated the sourcing according to whether it establishes notability of the company. The criteria established by the guidelines 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. None of the sourcing meets the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. The arguments referring to the above list of 13 URLs are not persuasive. As for the URLs:
1. – no significant coverage
2. – SIGCOV about the company, but not about the product. The website offers paid articles, with no mention of them being indicated as such.
3. – no coverage on the product, very little relevant coverage on the company (most of the information is routine)
4. – no SIGCOV
5. – an interview; therefore the source is neither secondary nor independent
6. – has SIGCOV, but seems to be a paid article
7. – mostly routine coverage
8. – an interview with an employee
9. – has some good coverage about the product
10. – an interview with one of the founders
11. – no SIGCOV
12. – paywalled
13. – no SIGCOV

Overall, these sources provide no sustained significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep :I think it's important to keep the article live as it is, since it’s authentic and doesn’t include any promotional content. It’s also received some good coverage, which adds to its credibility. Since it's not labeled as sponsored or paid, the exposure it gets feels more natural and genuine.. cashar334 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I share concerns about the listed sources, mentions are not enough. I looked into some of them and agree with the findings of Janhrach, above. C 679 05:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Just as HighKing stated above, I don't see an ORGCRIT pass either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Licious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - with the caveat that most Indian media nowadays is spoiled (pun intended), the coverage shows this is a unicorn company. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - changed from a Keep upon second look. Created by a new editor who has splashed up articles of dubious notability. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom and this page is for promotional and advertisement it seems. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - defunct streaming platform; not a unicorn; usual caveats for Indian media. This is really only of use for historical purposes. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 10:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage and depth worthy of notice about the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ( ) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 , showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well .... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use[REDACTED] as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Misplaced Pages isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: re-relisting because XFDCloser broke again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: speaking your mind on social media isn't notable, nearly everyone does it these days. If we had better information on the acting career, could perhaps be notable. I don't see this either, so we don't have notability. I can't find any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Other XfDs

Categories: