Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

Unusual eBay listings

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly subjective arbitrary list. --Altenmann >talk 00:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT per the ~~WP:CONSENSUS~~ argument at the first AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the first AFD was closed as "no consensus". And a "valid spinout" is a fair game for deletion. We deleted plenty of fancruft and "in popculture" pages after spinout of garbage. --Altenmann >talk 01:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann I get it. WP:LISTCRUFT is real. But in this case we have the topic discussed as a group or set in reliable sources so passing WP:NLIST would be possible. For example see this article in The Independent and this article in Time. In fact I'm just going to say keep per WP:NLIST because the sourcing is there to meet our guideline for lists.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "Top 10"-type attention-grabber articles (which, again, a highly subjective cherry-picking) make the subject notable. There is no objective criterion for an item to be "unusual" and the topic was not "discussed as a group" in any reasonable encyclopedic depth. --Altenmann >talk 02:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that "unusual" is a subjective criteria. That's why we rely on WP:RS to determine what is unusual and only include entries that have coverage in independent reliable materials. The article is predominantly cited to mainstream media so I don't see how a list in this case isn't possible under our guidelines. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are WP:RS that give a definition of "unusual listing". These cruft lists do not determine what is unusual, these are clickbait titles with arbitrary selections. and as such these are WP:UNDUE for inclusion into encyclopediaa. There are lost of such lists, like weird baby names, unusual trees, "25 Strangest Places In The World", "Unusual Women"... and what's not. I fail to see how these selections are encyclopedic. --Altenmann >talk 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clickbaity listicles padding out legitimate news websites do not count for WP:SIGCOV, especially given the total lack of analysis or of what makes the listings unusual. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think you could have a list of notable listings, but in these latter days it's getting hard to say that any listing on eBay is really all that unusual any more. Mangoe (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps one can create a section about this in the main article since this subject is not notable on its own. Koshuri ^(あ!) 12:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these aren't even that interesting. People do weird stuff, but the fact that something was put on eBay isn't that significant. Never seen such a blatant list of WP:Trivia on WP. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Near (programmer)

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

WP:BIO1E. All coverage of near is in the context of their tragic death, besides this single piece from Vice [2], which is good, and two not-sigcov pieces (references 8 and 9) about them selling a bunch of video games in 2012. 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG. That is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article shows Near worked on various notable projects before being driven to suicide, so not just 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They did not receive any coverage for it besides the one Vice piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG. Plenty of emulator developers are out there, who also don't have coverage. Also Near was nonbinary, not a he. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, corrected my wording above, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to particularly point out Vrxces's arguments below on the nature of 1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even apart from this specific AFD, this isn't true - if someone only received coverage when they died, even if the pieces on their death cover their earlier life (as almost all 1E people have some other coverage of their life), that is still a 1E case. This one is more complicated because Vice piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your hypothetical but that's more an issue due to WP:SUSTAINED I think - at any rate, there is some significant coverage (albeit not strong) suggesting the person's death is not the primary and only significance of their inclusion on the site. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however, it's clear more references are missing. This may well be because of Near changing their pseudonyms several times along the years. Looking on search engines for "Near" would return near nothing since it's a pseudonym they only used for about a year before their suicide. I also agree with Sarek that they were part of many projects of notability within the emulation community, most of them with their own Wikipedia pages nowadays. Retroarch, one of the biggest "projects" in the community was started as an alternative to bsnes' frontend. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are there sources for this? If not, it does not help. Near would not inherit the notability of things they worked on unless the sources are about them as well. If there are more sources and they are provided, then sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not fall under WP:1EVENT, which states that "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", due to the coverage from Vice that happened prior to that tragic death. While Near would possibly not have been notable if not for their death, this does not mean the article is inadmissible due to that, as far as I know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...that's not a quote from 1EVENT? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant WP:BLP1E. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article surely does not fall under BLP1E, since Near is no longer living. I probably could have made my nomination clearer, but 1 piece + one flurry of news coverage about one thing does not equal a passage of GNG (I have now added this to the nom). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how it would not equal GNG passing. The earlier coverage makes Near pass WP:SUSTAINED, while that and the news coverage of their death makes them pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I see the issue here and it's that the "one-event" rule and general notability are their own exercises. There is no need to illustrate that, but for the sourcing during the one event, the remaining sources have to establish their own standalone general notability. General notability is construed from the sourcing as a whole, which can be seen to have significant coverage, including from the Vice article'. It's also overlooked that coverage about the death also includes some coverage of Near's contributions to the emulation scene. So this is quite a way away from the policy intent of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E which is meant to curb non-notable articles for someone who is only known for, or involved in a single thing, at a single point in time. I understand the basis of the nomination because the non-death sourcing could be much better, but it isn't in an unsalvageable state for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Design Officer of the United States

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

Not a position that is guaranteed to exist in the future; thus, the information here can neatly fit within Gebbia's page for now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: With widespread international coverage, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. The position does not need to be permanent to warrant inclusion. Its creation by the U.S. government makes it historically significant, even if it is temporary or later abolished. This is not a company founded by Gebbia. The office's notability is not dependent on Gebbia. He is an individual, whereas CDO is a government office. A government office should not be treated as a subsection of a biography; it is an institutional entity in its own right.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's an official U.S. government position and whether it exists in the future is speculation and irrelevant, because it already received widespread coverage which meets notability guidelines. I'd also like to point out that this is not a symbolic position. The CDO is in charge of a nationwide initiative ("America by Design") and Trump ordered the creation of the National Design Studio. They also launched 2 government websites (ndstudio.gov and americabydesign.gov). Johndavies837 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. All we have now is White House press release sources, and media based on those. We can't build an article based on press release and press release adjacent materials. Not enough has happened with this position yet to warrant a stand alone article because it is WP:TOOSOON. I note that the earlier keep votes didn't actually provide evidence of notability. What we see in the press right now isn't actually significant coverage of this post because nobody has actually done anything in the job yet to write about. 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. There's not enough news sources out there to support this page. KitCatalog (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Seriously, you want to delete an article about a U.S. government office? The article could easily be expanded and better sourced. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The subject matter of this article consists of nothing but press releases, so it cannot be WP:NPOV. Maybe someday there will be something meaningful to say on the subject but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Fine Apples (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's all PR, all part of the executive office. There's no ongoing coverage. Sadly, it's part of the real problem with the media today. Bearian (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyjs

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

Entirely sourced from primary sources, published by the primary software developer WP:COI (Luke Leighton, aka User: Lkcl). No indication of nobility from reliable, third-party sources. Seems there was only pre-release product version, with the most recent being 0.8.1a, all back in 2012.

Looking at the references, they all fall into the following categories:

Primary source (5 of 6 ref are to the website of the project)
A single listing on an external website about a presentation the software author is giving.

For transparency I recently removed the following "broken" reference links from the page: (diff)

A link to a broken "google group" -- forums are not reliable sources for establishing notability.
A link to a broken github page (a primary source anyways)
A directory listing site at sourceforge, redirecting to the current project site
A very broken archive.org link, no idea on the content, but no way to rescue it either, but based on the ref tag, it appears to be self-published content.

Looking at google search using the project website[3] shows nothing to establish notabiliity aside from it being a small open source project with no sigcov.

It does look like it was maybe slightly more known under its former name, Pyjamas. But after it was renamed to pyjs, there is no SIGCOV for this new name, making it perhaps a bad WP:NAMECHANGE.

It is clear that Pyjamas did exist and was used, and is known about -- it has been referenced in "directory style" listings - both small and large, however, WP:NINI applies here. What is at question is if there are any reliable, third-party sources talking about this project that make it notable aside from any other open-source project with authors who are interested in self-promotion.

There was a prior AfD at [[4]] that NAC closed as keep, although a fresh look at the arguments presented, and the number of non-qualifying votes (SPA, etc), makes the outcome questionable at least.

TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Software. TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't at all my area and it is like reading a foreign language in the materials cropping up in searches. All I can say is, I got a promising number of hits in google scholar and just a few in google books using this as a search: "Pyjamas" software Python to JavaScript . Computer languages are not my expertise so I can't evaluate these materials. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a developer who was using pyjamas back when, I'd like to add that there was some definite controversy involved in the project. It was an up-and-coming light-weight alternative to GWT and had real momentum before experiencing a "hostile fork", described by some as a hijack^[1]. The infrastructure and project identity were taken over without the original lead developer’s consent, leading to a collapse of both the original and forked efforts. This dramatic turn of events is arguably the most historically significant aspect of the project, and one that deserves documentation. I strongly support keeping the article for historical and archival purposes, and would encourage expanding it with sourced details about the fork and its impact. From (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some very interesting backstory, and something I wasn't able to track down... A few follow-up questions, based on what you provided: (1) can you provide multiple reliable source reporting on the controversy; (2) does that mean that pyjs is a fork of Pyjammas -- and thus should not inherit the possible notability of the base code. It seems like Luke was trying to claim "ownership" of Pyjs, when it sounds like it wasn't so much of a rename, as rather someone else forked it, and move the project forward without him, but he is still trying to claim fame for it? Are their reliable sources to back up those claims? It is ironic that Luke appears to have suffered from this on his other projects like Libre-SOC and even some of that spilling over in his behavioral issues on here. It would seem that if Pyjs is a fork, and Pyjammas is really the notable project, perhaps it should be moved back to Pyjammas, and Pyjs be left only as a relatively small part of the history? TiggerJay (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VIDA Select

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability demonstrated. Most of the sources have passing mentions and do not refer to the topic directly. JohnMizuki (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article are enough for SIGCOV (GQ and Quartz articles are fairly solid). The article does have a promotional tone, especially the "Services" section, and needs to be trimmed down. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like quite a few sources since the last Afd such as this which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan 1337

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

Contested draftification. Sources are all syndicated news reports (apart from one completely unrelated source), not enough coverage to be notable. No sources from doing a WP:BEFORE either. Tenshi! (Talk page) 02:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It has notable coverage by Kaler Kantho , Samakal , Priyo.com and the statment " The official website of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab was hacked by Trojan 1337", is posted on X

- Attack type : Defacement"

- Mirror Archive of Deface : https://zone-xsec.com/mirror/id/734340

https://x.com/Trojan__1337/status/1957569279693328894 . Nityaanant (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Tenshi Hinanawi Nityaanant (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Technology, and India. jolielover♥talk 03:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with the nominator. The sources provided are syndicated reprints, so only the original publication can be taken into account, not each repeat of the same content. If there are any additional independent sources that cover the topic, please do share them for review. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nomination. No SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Piquepaille

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual does not seem to meet WP:GNG, at first glance from a search he appears to have some sources written about him, such as this in The Washington Post, but on further inspection these amount to nothing more than blogs or passing mentions; there's no actual significant coverage in reliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Engineering, and Internet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akamon Entertainment

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

Little to no notability established by its sources outside of being a promising start-up and various trivial details. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Spain. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Most sources are primary or mention the company only in passing. Despite some coverage, there's a lack of sustained, in-depth attention from multiple independent, reliable sources. Setwardo (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only found a mention on VentureBeat, which does not speak to notability. IgelRM (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phellowship

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) all current references are either self published group website, Facebook, Reddit or minor mentions in non independent outlets. I was unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic may be notable within Phish fan culture but could be merged into the main Phish article or a section on sober fan groups in jam band culture....Without substantial independent coverage a standalone page is not warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thilio (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 August 2025 (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/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Health and fitness, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference^[2] in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as well as coverage in a media outlet,^[3] and apparently there is a fan-made documentary about the group on Youtube which received some attention here.^[4] There's a podcast^[5] interviewing an organiser too, and the idea also inspired similar groups to form for NFL fans.^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html
^ Brillhart, Ross (2023-11-01), "Recovery- and sobriety-support groups in a music community: An ethnographic study of Phish, the Phellowship, and the sensorium of sobriety", Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, vol. 154, Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.josat.2023.209120, ISSN 2949-8759, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ Waldman, Scott (2025-08-22), "Phellowship a safe place for Phish heads", Times Union, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ Shackleford, Tom (2019-01-30), "New Mini-Documentary Gives Inside Look At The Sober Community Within The Jam Scene [Watch]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ "Episode 60: The Magic of Sobriety with Paige Clem from The Phellowship - Osiris", Osiris, 2023-01-27, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ O'Brien, Andrew (2023-01-03), "Phish Fans Inspire New Sober Support Community At Iconic NFL Stadium [Video]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22

Winnie-the-Screwed

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

There seems to be no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this commercial after 2022. It got some coverage at first but does not seem to have had any lasting impact years later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As with films, coverage at the time of publication is sufficient. - E. Ux 04:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any notable coverage of this film after January 2024. It appears to have gained a lot of attention on release but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a year later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SUSTAINED is not a good criterion to judge films. Reviews are generally published at the time of their release. - E. Ux 22:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am on a multiday travel (with limited internet), so I just copy-paste what I wrote on the previous deletion-discussion, because I feel this argument still stands. Especially with a film, that will always not recieve the same level of media attention a couple of years after its release:

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like Bloody Disgusting and Joblo.com, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.'x

I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.

A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.

This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership".

Jonastav89 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boogami

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:WEB: no independent,secondary and in-depth coverage. Only brief local 2008 pieces. LvivLark (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. LvivLark (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, fails WP:GNG. Seems like a brief flurry of news from the time; WP:NOTNEWS. jolielover♥talk 17:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Brandon (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media use by Azealia Banks

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage of a famous individual's social media accounts does not mean "Social media use by Azealia Banks" is a notable topic. Suggest mergeing back into Azealia Banks#Disputes and controversies, as this does not meet any criteria in WP:NWEB. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like there's a danger here of a series of pages in this vein which get increasingly ridiculous. If the current page gets too long maybe someone will create another one about the subject's use of Instagram or whatever. Nope, we don't need this. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia not dissecting every word that a celeb writes on social media. WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.--Laun chba ller 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from officially saying "keep" since I am the primary contributor to the article. Moreover, I think that trimming is necessary to focus on solely the most notable aspects of this topic. Banks' notability does not give this topic inherited notability per WP:INHERITWEB because of her celebrity status, if there was an article for Social media use by Taylor Swift or a similar celebrity, I would agree that it should be deleted. However, Banks is equally an internet personality as much as she is a musician, and if her article were to cover both her music and internet presence in-depth, the article would be far too long. We can see that Banks' social media activity this in the eyes of the public, as evidenced by the routine spikes in pageviews for both Banks' page and this page whenever a controversy surrounding her arrises. We also see this in the eyes of the media, given its obviously extensive coverage visible in the ref list. I would also push back against the usage of WP:ROUTINE here. Many of Banks' inflammatory statements (for example, calling Thailand "a septic tank of a country") do not make the news or only receive minimal coverage. Media coverage of a specific Banks-related controversy doesn't necessarily fall under WP:ROUTINE, but instead proves Banks' activity is a notable cultural phenomenon. Per WP:WEBCRIT itself, a variety of independent, third-party, reliable sources across different mediums confirm that her behavior is notable as well. That's my rationale on keeping it, however I think it would also be best to loop in WikiProject Internet culture too to see their opinions. 1dagsvlieg (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there's probably a notable topic based at least on Banks' feuds with other celebrities. There are multiple RS that have published articles on her feuds collectively as a distinct topic: e.g. Complex, Billboard, The Independent. I could see the case for either keeping or merging this article, so I'm holding off on giving an actual !vote for now, but I think the sources indicate that there's more to this topic than just an arbitrary list of routine incidents. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that the topic covered is notable, though perhaps the way it was framed may not have been the most ideal. As the creator of the article, I would actually say to move the article to something along the lines of Feuds involving Azealia Banks or Incidents involving Azealia Banks, as her feuds, shile notable, aren't necessarily confined to the internet, a notable example being her feud with Russel Crowe. 1dagsvlieg (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - her social media use has been controversial (for example, posting about Lil Nas X), but better to place this in context. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (undecided) - I agree with the Comment from ModernDayTrilobite above. Azealia Banks is known for her social media beefs, perhaps more so than for her music as many of her targets have retorted. Her social media practices and feuds have received reliable coverage as a phenomenon in their own right by several reliable media publications, far outside of her music. I am leaning toward merging this material back to her main article, but there is so much of it that the main article would become lopsided. On the other hand, if this social media-specific article is kept we don't need a list that drones on and on about every single one of her beefs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculousness is not a disqualifier of a page's inclusion into Wikipedia. Wikipedia constantly includes pages that are just as or even more ridiculous than this page. For example, Wikipedia feuds/controversies have their own pages, even though they're a. nowhere near as culturally relevant as Azealia Banks and b. nowhere near as popular as Azealia Banks. I think someone might've mentioned this but forgive me because I'm skimming, Azealia Banks' Wikipedia page views spike once she's said and done something controversial. This demonstrates a clear demand for information and Banks' relevancy in pop culture today. It's easy to dismiss pop culture and its happenings as not relevant and not necessary to document, but it's also important to understand that people are actively looking for sources on these conflicts and happenings, and there's no reason at all to remove this page. If there is, then you're going to have cull many, many pages on Wikipedia which is a. a waste of time b. unnecessary and c. just a detriment to the human base of knowledge and our sense of fun and whimsy. Of course, decorum is important, but don't be mutilating peoples' sense of cultural awareness just because it appears "silly". This attitude gets reflected in things like sports, music, etc. but we look now into past encylcopedias to understand what pop culture and its controversies looked like back then. Who's saying in 30 years, our children won't wonder what Azealia Banks did to get such a controversial name? Smallmandarin (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the last sentence: WP:CRYSTALBALL, we have to judge in the present jolielover♥talk 05:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobicip

AfDs for this article:

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

GNG fail. Sourced almost entirely to itself. Electricmemory (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikreator

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

No evidence of notability. All sources are from the creators of this tool. Fram (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for various obvious reasons WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context--- The article written here is new and needs more time to reach 10000 words. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikikreator is a tool of Wikipedia, you obviously need an article on the matter. Moreover whoever is calling out that most of the references are from creator himself, he needs to check it out again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isolatedchimpanzee (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies against AI, it would be weird to then have a page describing a tool that does it.
Also it isn't a tool of wikipedia as far as I know in that it isn't a bot which is maintained and reviewed on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to give a good point but you are forgetting that much of assistance tool in Wikipedia are Ai powered, but you are right it is not "maintained" anymore. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this means. JMWt (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let me try again. 1. You are not right to say that Wikipedia is against AI, because Wikipedia makes a great use of AI tools in day to day functions. And saying it does not will be hypocrisy (by definition). I am not sure if it is your opinion. 2. You are right WikiKreator no longer exist as online, however it was "that automatically expands short Wikipedia “stubs” into fuller articles by leveraging information". Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a tool "that......

Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this particular article is written for requested articles, so I do not consider it as promotion. Isolatedchimpanzee (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that makes any sense. JMWt (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no indication that this is notable, no independent coverage that I can find. Driftingdrifting (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG --tony 02:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QQLive

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and China. jolielover♥talk 09:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Feng, Liju; Yang, Jie; Zhou, Wenli (November 2009). "Research on active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system". 2009 IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICNIDC.2009.5360863.
  The abstract notes: "Based on the analysis of QQLive protocol, an active monitoring based QQLive real-time information acquisition system was presented by the in-depth study of characteristic message and characteristic payload in the communication process of QQLive. The system acquires the channel list and program information, at the same time monitors the viewing user information by forging the client to send message to the server. Theoretical analysis and experiments demonstrate that the active monitoring based method has higher controllability and accuracy in comparison with the passive monitoring based method. The active monitoring based real-time information acquisition system provides an important data foundation to the content detection and user behavior analysis of P2P streaming media."
  The aritcle notes: "QQLive is large-scale video broadcast software developed by Tencent. It uses advanced P2P streaming media playing technology, the more users the more fluent playing and more stable. ... The communication process of QQLive will be described in detail, which has provided an important basis for the real-time information acquisition system design."
2. Yang, Jie; Li, Yin-zhou; Dong, Chao; Ma, Zheng; Cheng, Gang (October 2012). "The impact of typical applications on network traffic". The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications. 19: 98–103.
  The article notes: "Many researches showed that the usage of P2P applications is growing dramatically and typical P2P streaming applications such as PPLive, PPStream, and QQLive become very popular. ... QQLive (a commercial video-streaming application that is delivered through P2P) ... PPStream and QQLive belong to P2PStream. ... So we can know that HTTP, PPStream, HTTPFlash, QQLive and Thunder play an important role in network traffic. ... QQLive has the lowest correlation coefficient both on Thursday and Sunday, and the values are 0.991 and 0.986, which remain considerably high. "
3. Wang, Jingqun 王敬群; Yang, Wang 杨望; Ding, Wei 丁伟 (2010). "部分应用软件使用UDP协议调查" [Investigation on the Use of the UDP Protocol by some Application Software] (PDF). 第十二届海峡两岸信息（资讯）技术（CSIT2010） [The 12th Cross-Strait Information Technology Conference (CSIT2010)] (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-08-24. Retrieved 2025-08-24.
  The article notes: "QQLive:QQLive 是一款由腾讯开发的网络电视软件。对抓包结果分析可知，QQLive 可以同时兼容TCP 和UDP 方式，但以UDP 协议主。软件启动后，UDP 较少（低于5%），正式播放后，UDP 逐渐增多，最终所占比率大于 80%，其中包含使用 UDP 封装的QICQ，STUN 应用层协议和没有应用层的UDP协议。图6为其中的一次抓包结果。"
  From Google Translate: "QQLive: QQLive is an online TV application developed by Tencent. Analysis of packet capture results shows that QQLive is compatible with both TCP and UDP, but primarily uses UDP. After the software is launched, UDP traffic is relatively low (less than 5%). After live streaming, UDP traffic gradually increases, ultimately exceeding 80%. This includes QICQ using UDP encapsulation, the STUN application layer protocol, and UDP without an application layer. Figure 6 shows the results of one such packet capture."
4. Zhang, Renfei; He, Side; Jia, Yanyan; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Leilei (2012-04-06). "Traffic Analysis of Popular Peer-to-Peer IPTV VoD Systems". ICEICE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering. Vol. 3. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 958–962. Retrieved 2025-08-24.
  The abstract notes: "In order to gain insights to the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics of the VoD systems of the four most popular P2P IPTV, namely PPTV, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live, this paper develops and deploys a passive network measurement with a sniffer tool in the experiment test bed designed, then analyses the traffic characteristics and peer behavior characteristics. The key findings include: 1) PPTV uses TCP protocol with port 80 to send the video streaming, PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live use UDP protocol with Non-well-known port to send and receive the video traffic, 2) The download rate of PPTV, PP Stream and Kankan is periodic, QQ live does not show any obvious pattern, 3) CCDF of the download-peers lifetime of PP Stream, Kankan and QQ live follow a Weibull distribution."
5. Wang, Wenxian; Chen, Xingshu; Wang, Haizhou; Zhang, Qi; Wang, Cheng (2014-03-19). "Measurement and Analysis of P2P IPTV Program Resource". The Scientific World Journal. Vol. 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/101702. ProQuest 1561736104.
  The article notes: "PPTV and QQLive only offer 6-level popularity. Thus, we must normalize the number of viewers according to the number of online viewers of various IPTV applications. In June 2010, the maximum viewers of PPStream, UUSee, PPTV, and QQLive are about 20.0, 2.0, 11.0, and 6.6 million, respectively. ... While hierarchy depth distribution of QQLive is quite different from that of other applications, its 4-hierarchy programs account for 57.22%. Thus, its programs are prone to used short name."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow QQLive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NetPresenz

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

Unfortunately this seems to have next to no secondary sources covering it, making it fail WP:PRODUCT. The only thing that'd be close is [5], but it's not verifiable as a self-published (open wiki) source. There's also [6] which is honestly pretty good despite being a blog. Giving the benefit of the doubt and calling its author a subject-matter expert, we still are pretty weak in terms of "sustained" coverage.

Searching for FTPd doesn't seem to reveal much either besides an unrelated FTP server for the 3DS, but it's possible it's just really buried? Perryprog (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Perryprog
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Currently referenced manual^[1]	Primary		✘ No
Macintosh repository^[2]		User-generated content	✘ No
Macworld^[3]	Weird that it says "NetPresenz is available [...] at macworld.com" but meh.	Macworld good.	✔ Yes
Happymacs^[4]		~ Blog, but it's a pretty good blog!	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

^ [1]
^ "NetPresenz - Macintosh Repository". www.macintoshrepository.org. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
^ Hawn, Matthew (May 1996). "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring". Macworld. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 55. ISSN 0741-8647.
^ happymacs (2014-07-09). "Networking Your Classic Macintosh with Windows, Part 3 – Using NetPresenz and Fetch". Quadras, Cubes and G5s. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. Perryprog (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Sources for this seems scarce, do see it being mentioned here and there but no obvious SIGCOV from my websearches so far, no hits from Google News at all, interestingly using Wikipedia Library and got this, though seems like a one-off, at most if an ATD must be done, could this be merged to File Transfer Protocol ?.Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't seem to work for me, but following your lead I assume it's "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring"? That looks pretty excellent—I think that combined with the blog post could be something, though it's definitely a stretch. Including a mention of it in FTP's article would definitely be neat since it is nice to have some reference to old software like this. I've added a source assessment table above to summarize what's been found. (Edits welcome.) Perryprog (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources covering the topic. Hitesh Thakrani (talk)

Benjamin Heywood (entrepreneur)

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

Lacking sufficient coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^Talk 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment There is an article at Benjamin Heywood about an older and notable subject and there is no concern I see regarding article title evasion or hijacking, and this is properly disambiguated. Nathannah • 📮 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concerns raised about that. What made you think there might be an issue? - The9Man ^Talk 07:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common for promotional editors who want to brute force their articles here to use different titles with parentheticals to do so (especially after being salted); just commenting that this is not the case here for those on AfD so they know in advance and this is just a regular BLP. Nathannah • 📮 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman (technology executive)

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

Pure promotional puff piece, likely generated by AI. The only good source here is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. Unfortunately, we have no room for any more brochures. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. MediaKyle (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO with substantial independent coverage over decades, not just interviews: Wired (Feb 1997) on PrivNet/PGP; Forbes (July 1999) “The E-Gang”; Los Angeles Times (Apr 10, 2001) and Adweek (Apr 9, 2001) on eMusic’s sale to UMG (~$23–25m); Reuters (Sept 14, 2016) and Light Reading (Sept 14, 2016) on Amdocs’ acquisition of Vindicia. That is secondary, non-promotional sourcing across multiple career phases (so not WP:BIO1E). Any puffery is a cleanup Qrivas (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is likely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindicia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes source seems to be okay (apparently staff-written), although it is part of a listicle. But none of the other sources have independent non-trivial coverage. Many of these sources don't even mention Hoffman. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Rana

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, also borderline self promotion or COI. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on the same subject was speedy-deleted on id.wiki under A7 and salted due to multiple recreation. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, note that the article's creator has an editing history focused solely on this article, which raises a COI concern. Also, the article was previously rejected multiple times during the AfC process before the creator eventually published it himself. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) through multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, including Liputan6, Tempo, Merdeka, TVOne, and international publication Rest of World. These are not trivial mentions but substantial profiles covering the subject's public engagement and role in documenting the development of Indonesia's new capital.

While the article may have been initially drafted with assistance, it has since been entirely rewritten and supported with verifiable sources. It is not promotional in tone and has been reviewed carefully for neutrality.

Therefore, the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be kept. Nusantarakita (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, COI, multiple deletion on idwiki. Contributor(s) also suspected abusing multiple accounts. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 09:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOV (computers)

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

No refs on the page for a long time. Not seeing much to offer for consideration of the notability standards JMWt (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and merge selected content to Geoff Collyer:~~ It's a shame to lose this information but after a search on scholar, Google books, and Google news I'm forced to conclude it's not that notable. There's some discussion in this article but it's obscure (not well-cited, not in a major/top conference) and WP:PASSING. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Collyer even notable himself? I don't see any sources in his article that pass WP:NBIO. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Merge to C News then? Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure I'm clear on the relation between these. I guess that C News was the first to support the new indexing format NOV, but not the last (per your "Managing Usenet" source). Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: There are at least a few paragraphs of significant coverage. This source seems useful, while this source is more borderline. There appears to be coverage here but I can only see it through snippet view. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds! That makes me feel better that this might be notable. That being said even with these, do we have enough coverage for a standalone article? Maybe merge to C News is clearer for readers. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Spencer, one of the authors of Managing Usenet, had previously partnered with Collyer to write C News. I'm not sure whether this compromises the source's independence.

On the other hand, XOVER should probably merged to this article, and there are more bits of coverage about it: [7], [8], [9]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge: selected content to Geoff Collyer seems sensible for me if current gathered available sources lacks SIGCOV, did find this from giganews, for fellow wikipedians more familiar with computers literature to check if its a solid source, it tells a bit of history of how the NOV came to be. Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:SPS corporate blog so not a reliable source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is just to note that Geoff Collyer now has an open deletion discussion, which is leaning delete also. So we may have a bit of a race condition here :) Merge to C News may be a viable alternative as discussed above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Geoff Collyer is not a possible Merge target article since it has been deleted. Is there another choice or should this article be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge to C News. I don't want to base an article on bits and pieces of source coverage. I was initially hesitant to merge because they are somewhat separate concepts but the article can connect them somewhat naturally, and in fact C News already contains discussion of NOV. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of VoIP software

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

I'm electing to nominate this for deletion as a failure of WP:V and WP:OR, as well as large amounts of outdated and unsourced information. A majority of the existing sources are taken from corporate websites or changelogs, which do not provide reliable secondary coverage. Many of the "latest releases" listed here are inaccurate, and defunct programs such as Skype are still prominently featured. In its current state, this article doesn't appear to be useful, and I don't think editing to improve it is worthwhile due to the necessary upkeep. Readers would be better served by individual articles. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I come down on Keep here. Addressing the nomination first, WP:V is about sources in the world, and that doesn't seem like an issue. I'm not seeing what's OR about copying bits of data without interpretation. Outdated isn't a reason for deletion. Some unsourced, but a ton of sourced information isn't a problem either. That said, I can't find good standards for what kind of data to include in a comparison. This type of article is common, and even listed at WP:SALAT (the name or title List of Xs is still preferable to Table of Xs or Comparison of Xs (though the latter may be appropriate for articles that are actual tables of data comparing numerous features, e.g. Comparison of Linux distributions).). Presumably it does not mean that data about Linux distributions must always come from independent sources, which will of course be more likely to become outdated, but I'm just not sure. There's a lot not to like here, but I think it generally falls into WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP as, at the end of the day, there are plenty of sources out there which treat VoIP software as a group sufficient to get by WP:LISTN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some other "comparison of software" articles, this one is certainly notable and written properly. Auto5656 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article would benefit from further discussion to establish whether it should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Octoroc

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of GNG. Couldn't find more sources that aren't the subject's videos masquerading as sources or marginally related to the subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nil🥝 01:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the previous nomination editors argued that WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE were met, and I think their analysis still stands (even if it was closed as no consensus, I think the keep !votes were stronger). The artist and his projects have had coverage from a variety of reliable and independent sources (Kotaku, 1UP.com, Brandon Boyer for Offworld, GameSetWatch, ~~Variety~~ etc.); some are more in depth than others, but overall enough to establish notability. Nil🥝 01:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A full source analysis would be helpful, I am not particular convinced those albums received critiques. IgelRM (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above and in the previous AfD that together show a pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of his albums is not the same as coverage of the artist himself. Notability is not inherited, but his albums are also not notable enough for him to pass WP:NARTIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked the sources listed above as supposedly meeting the WP:GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent." These sources listed above are "Kotaku, 1UP.com, Offworld, GameSetWatch, Variety." I did not find "Variety" in the article and a google search for "Octoroc" on variety.com found absolutely nothing as did a search on Variety's website itself. All of the other suggested sources are either extremely short insignificant coverage, or an interview that is not independent of the subject. Source assessment table is below. Fails WP:GNG completely. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Asparagusstar
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://web.archive.org/web/20081225110027/https://kotaku.com/5116106/8+bit-jesus-the-second-coming-of-the-first-album		Just six short sentences	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20081222160408/https://kotaku.com/5114542/listen-in-on-a-very-8+bit-christmas-album		Just four short sentences and a track listing	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20101119070640/https://kotaku.com/5691555/the-console-war-fought-final-fantasy-style/		Just five short sentences	✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20110701065121/https://kotaku.com/5816732/of-course-a-bear-grylls-rpg-would-include-copious-piss-drinking		Just three sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120803121014/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9030497	An interview of the subject is not independent of the subject		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110427214110/http://www.offworld.com/2008/12/8-bit-jesus-the-nes-themed-chi.html		Just two sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110310174429/http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/12/after_these_messages_doctor_oc.php		Just five sentences	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110310174408/http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2011/03/shamroctoroc_chiptunes_for_st.php		Just three sentences	✘ 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}}.

Comment Apologies I'm not sure where I got Variety from in my previous comment. Thank you for doing the source analysis above, its useful. However, I do disagree with your interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, which does not focus on the length of sources. Rather, you should be assessing whether the sources have details relating to the artist, and that the mentions are non-trivial. Whilst they are short, the Kotaku and Gamesetwatch articles both contain details relating directly to the subject, and are non-trivial in nature. If we take all the Kotaku coverage as a whole, it would easily meet sigcov; ditto with gamesetwatch. Both meet RS per WP:VG/RS.

Would be good to have a source analysis of all the article's sources, as it includes some listed at WP:RSPSOURCES like Wired.

Separately to the above, adding some further sources to this discussion I've been able to find:

This article [10] from music journalist Alex Rawls (who has bylines in Spin, Rolling Stone, Offbeat among others)
Some newspaper articles about one of his art projects [11] & [12]

Nil🥝 02:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has already wasted enough of our time with ridiculous claims about nonexistent coverage in Variety and how a two sentence blog post provides the Wikipedia standard of significant coverage to write an encyclopedia article about a living person. There is no need to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a genuine mistake which I already apologised for; that shouldn't be grounds for dropping AGF.

Had you done a full source analysis of the article's references, you may have realised I probably got Variety and Vulture mixed up. Yes, that's on me.

But I'm not here to waste anyone's time, and I'm not against the article being deleted – I just want to ensure that any such decision is done so robustly. Nil🥝 22:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table analyzing every source this editor wasted our time with by falsely claiming met WP:GNG, including time I spent searching for a source they claimed was in Variety which there is no evidence even exists. I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point, now you're just being WP:UNCIVIL. Yes, I made a mistake, and I apologise for it.

If that's ridiculous to you, you're welcome to walk away. Nil🥝 23:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, there is an article on Variety if you search under his real name... Just not enough to count as sigcov, however. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the table above does not evaluate the reliable column. But the sourcing here is at maximum relevant to write about a music album, not a biography. Also the last two sources are local coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD doesn't exclude them as counting if At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is used. Whether they pass WP:NWORK may be more of an issue... Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a source analysis of every reference currently in the article here, and it's... not great. The best source towards meeting GNG is the profile I introduced above. In addition to what's in the article, I found the following which appears to meet sigcov:

https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/youtube-game-of-thrones-und-breaking-bad-im-pixel-look-a-1025927.html

The biggest issue here is when we apply WP:NWORK to the existing sigcov. Ideally, there'd be one more source in order to comfortably pass GNG. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the effort searching for sources. But the Spiegel article is filed under Angeklickt and the last paragraphs are purely showcasing videos. Whether the author of My Spilt Milk is a journalist or not, it is still a blog. I don't think both can meet GNG. IgelRM (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Spilt Milk should fit the definition of subject-matter expert under WP:BLOGS, as Rawls is an established music journalist and academic. Rawls aside, I totally accept that overall GNG is pretty weak / difficult to establish here though. Nil🥝 21:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for non-notability. The above comments of ZXCVBNM match my views which, as Nil mentions, I have tried to capture in WP:NOTWORK, although this is not formal policy. The article does some helpful and unhelpful things: it provides a lot of reliable secondary coverage about the works of the artist quite amply, but tends to over-source and lean on trivial coverage. Examples of this are using the one sentence in the Clair book about the subject - Chiptune artist Doctor Octoroc raised more than $10,000 on Kickstarter to [create a tribute album] made "using only the five monophonic channels available on the NES RP2A03 sound chip." and then extrapolates what is obviously a quote from the Kickstarter to generalise about the artist's equipment and setup. The only significant coverage about the artist I can see is the Spiegel article and the Alex Rawls blog - accepting that Rawls is an able subject matter expert and this source is valuable. It's almost there. But it isn't enough to reliably furnish a WP:BLP for an article about the subject rather than about the works the subject has created, given the higher standard for BLP articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[1] ttps://technogems.blogspot.com/2012/05/pyjamas-hijacked.html

[2] Brillhart, Ross (2023-11-01), "Recovery- and sobriety-support groups in a music community: An ethnographic study of Phish, the Phellowship, and the sensorium of sobriety", Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, vol. 154, Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.josat.2023.209120, ISSN 2949-8759, retrieved 2025-08-22

[3] Waldman, Scott (2025-08-22), "Phellowship a safe place for Phish heads", Times Union, retrieved 2025-08-22

[4] Shackleford, Tom (2019-01-30), "New Mini-Documentary Gives Inside Look At The Sober Community Within The Jam Scene [Watch]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22

[5] "Episode 60: The Magic of Sobriety with Paige Clem from The Phellowship - Osiris", Osiris, 2023-01-27, retrieved 2025-08-22

[6] O'Brien, Andrew (2023-01-03), "Phish Fans Inspire New Sober Support Community At Iconic NFL Stadium [Video]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22

[manual-7] [1]

[macrepo-8] "NetPresenz - Macintosh Repository". www.macintoshrepository.org. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

[macworld-9] Hawn, Matthew (May 1996). "NetPresenz 4.0: Internet server on a shoestring". Macworld. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 55. ISSN 0741-8647.

[happymacs-10] ymacs (2014-07-09). "Networking Your Classic Macintosh with Windows, Part 3 – Using NetPresenz and Fetch". Quadras, Cubes and G5s. Retrieved 2025-08-23.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]