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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet.

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

See also: computer-related deletions.

List of NX Files characters[edit]

List of NX Files characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no sources covering these characters, let alone as a group. I think its parent article NX Files isn't notable either, so redirecting should not be considered. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Like the nom also mentioned, I'm not finding anything to indicate that the actual NX Files itself is notable, let alone this unsourced list of characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Martial arts, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crackhead Barney[edit]

Crackhead Barney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject of biography has low encyclopedic value and fails general notability guidelines with only a handful of sources and a social networking video channel. A person who harasses and stalks celebrities like Alec Baldwin in so-called "ambush interviews" is not a reputable news reporter. AfdBarney (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

Clermont Sans Fil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is not correct to suggest that this is completely unsourced. It has no citations but the references section has four references 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, the citations are WP:ABOUTSELF so, I didn't really count them. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Fahad[edit]

Umm Fahad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A Iraqi TikTok personality who was recently shot. Seems to lack any notability or sources while alive, a violation of WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Crime, Internet, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal I'd support a move to Death of Umm Fahad.Jeanette Tu Novia Martin (?) 22:05, 27 April, 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't the title Murder of Umm Fahad be more accurate? Like Murder of John Lennon? Brudelman (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, thats what i meant...Jeanette Ms. Red Lipstick Martin (?) 02:35, 29 April, 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @BlakeIsHereStudios: Has someone consulted possible sources in Arabic? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually think Internet "personalities" are worth the time of day. However, she seems noteworthy as it further highlights the ludicrous things that people will fall foul of the morality police in the middle east.Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a result of "Morality Police" - as Iraq doesn't have an official designated police force. Iran on the other hand, yes. The Ghashd Ershad (Morality Police) exist there, but don't shoot people (albeit they do harass people). This woman was killed by some lunatic fanatic by the looks of things, nothing related to morality police. Just thought I would clarify that. Ali313korosh (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•My understanding is that in Iraq, an influencer may speak about social and political issues as well as promoting cosmetics and clothing. Perhaps an explanation of the role of influencers would make the death more significant. - - - - 65.18.206.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Death of Umm Fahad per JeanetteMartin's !vote, most if not all the coverage of this individual seems to be in regards of their death. However, more indebth sources need to be provided in order to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG, which I am unsure if the article passes at the moment. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and wait, as her death seems to be gathering international attention. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing[edit]

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

This article is largely primary sources and WP:SYNTH of these sources. The first half is mostly just explianing what hyperlinks and framing is (mostly unnecessary WP:HOWTO), and the 2nd half largely acknowledges there really aren't copyright issues in US/Germany and other contexts. Why does this even exist? ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The absence of prohibitions for a subject controversial enough to have led to lawsuits is itself the notable thing worth being covered in an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with this article that cannot be fixed. BD2412 T 22:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article exists because the topic is notable: It satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and HeinOnline, in particular. There are many entire periodical articles about this, such as: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. No evidence has been offered of actual SYNTH or HOWTO. James500 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: I agree that this topic is notable, but the article as written is basically an essay. For example, this part of the lead is written as if it's part of an argumentative paper: The issues about linking and framing have become so intertwined under copyright law that it is impractical to attempt to address them separately. As will appear, some decisions confuse them with one another, while other decisions involve and therefore address both. Likewise, this section is 100% OR: Related issues arise from use of inline links (also called image-source or img-src links because the HTML code begins with "img src=") on Web pages. An inline link places material — usually an image such as a JPEG or GIF — from a distant website into the Web page being viewed. For example, the adjacent image is the seal of the USPTO, as shown on some of its pages at the USPTO website. Additionally, the "History of copyright litigation in field" section is also OR, as it lists several cases without providing reliable secondary sources that establish that the cases listed are significant and provides unsourced analysis of the state of the law. Several of the sections lack citations and make arguments, rather than describe what RSes say about this topic. We should not allow an article that draws legal conclusions to remain in mainspace without adequate sourcing; this would be uncontroversial if the article had MEDRS issues and the standard should be the same when we have legal information on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The headnotes in the third series of the Federal Reporter (which is what "F.3d" means) are an independent secondary source. Most cases are not reported, and a case would not be reported in a series of law reports unless it was believed to have precedent value (and is therefore "significant"). In any event, the cases of Kelly and Perfect 10 are discussed in treatises and periodical articles on the subject, which is not surprising since they are Ninth Circuit decisions on the point (and, indeed, they are independently notable).

  And you can add the Ticketmaster and Shetland Times cases to that as well, based on sources in Google Books, such as [10] and numerous other sources that are returned by a search for "Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills"+hyperlinks. I should also point out that a lack of citations is not the same thing as OR.

  The standard of MEDRS should not be applied to law, because law is not an experimental science, legal sources bear no resemblence to medical sources either in their content or their correct use, and it would be pseudolaw to apply the methodolgy of medical science to law. James500 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument is not that law is a science or analogous to it, but that we shouldn't present legal information to people based on an editor's opinion or analysis of case law, which is how the article is currently written. I think this article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I also am not arguing that lack of citation implies OR, but this article is clearly written in an essay-like, argumentative style, and the fact that there are no citations in significant parts of the articles compounds the problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding precedential value, that is decided by the court issuing the opinion, not the reporter. I don't think headnotes alone are sufficient to establish that a particular case is significant, since every published case gets them, and not every published case represents a significant legal development. For example, in New York, every appellate decision is published and has precedential value, even if it's a short, unsigned memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "in New York, every appellate decision is published". Published by whom? A law report is not the same thing as an official transcript. I can tell you for certain that in England, not all appellate decisions are reported, and the reporter decides which cases to report based on his opinion of their value, not the court. Similarly in England, the headnote tells you what the reporter thinks the ratio decidendi of the case is. James500 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're published by both the official reporter (the Law Reporting Bureau [LRB]) and by West in their proprietary law reports. The LRB writes the headnotes as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In New York, only selected trial court opinions get reported, but all Appellate Division opinions are reported. Some states and the federal appellate courts are like the UK, where not all appellate decisions are reported. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:Voorts: Leaving aside whether the present state of the article is satisfactory (and I was already prepared to accept that it is less than optimal), draftification is not likely to result in improvements, since most drafts are invariably abandoned, because most editors won't edit in the draftspace. How about cutting the article down to a properly referenced "stub" without any content that might potentially violate NOT, so that it can be rebuilt and re-expanded in the mainspace? I can do that for you now if you want. James500 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made a start on removing the disputed material. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not attempt to improve a page that has been draftified after an AfD, because there is no satisfactory procedure for moving such pages back to the mainspace. James500 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the process is that any editor in good standing can move it back to mainspace when it's ready, or, if one wants to be cautious, it can be sent through AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify it's clear this article has way too much WP:SYNTH to remain, and in addition is frankly, too technical. We should avoid trying to provide legal advice on Wikipedia. This article should probably focus way less on the case law and a lot more on any news media coverage of the subject (I suspect there have been a lot of reporters and think tanks that have probably explored this). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should focus more on academic coverage in law reviews/journals, rather than media coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The body of case law is the subject. The academic coverage in law reviews is coverage of that body of case law. The problem is not the discussion of cases that are precedents. There may, however, be a problem with what sources that discussion is referenced to, and whether the sources support the claims in that discussion. James500 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXDial[edit]

XXXDial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Few mentions anywhere; notability is not established. Joyous! Noise! 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Optimizer[edit]

Internet Optimizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

(This discussion is) Off the Record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justiyaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justiyaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

1. Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
2. Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justiyaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe[edit]

Khadija Mbowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per a very detailed nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them ([11][12][13][14][15][16], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EBay API[edit]

EBay API (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. While eBay is obviously notable, it's not clear that its API is. The article itself is extremely support with little more than a feature list, and the only sources are eBay itself. I would suggest merging into eBay but its really not obvious what the notability of this is--lots of websites have APIs. TheRealOj32 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. As per nom, there are tons of APIs out there, and there's nothing showing this one is notable.  DiscantX 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Due to lack of WP:RS coverage. There are notable APIs like Google APIs.GobsPint (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNS blacklists[edit]

Comparison of DNS blacklists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While the blacklists may be notable, the construction of a comparison is basically WP:OR and probably falls foul of WP:NOTCATALOG; it'll also be utterly unmaintainable as lists change. This isn't Wikipedia's business. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedistan[edit]

Swedistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is little more than an Internet meme that began its existence as a 4chan hoax. Most of the references in the article don't even use the term "Swedistan". As the term is not commonly used, it has not been the object of significant coverage. Pichpich (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Internet, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and anyway the references barely support the claims made, as nom points out. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete part of internet culture, but not notable by our standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Yes, there are a couple of good sources, but as a whole are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightquest[edit]

Knightquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [17], doesn't count as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out), as it has won an award. If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

Seekda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.

     The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."

     The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."

  2. Fensel, Dieter; Michele Facca, Federico; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.

     The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."

  3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.

     The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."

  4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.

     The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "

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

  Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll[edit]

International Online Film Critics' Poll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Internet. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. We don't have an article on the organisation "International Online Film Critics", so I don't know why we'd have an article on their poll. Desertarun (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

Malik Siraj Akbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp[edit]

XSharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nette Framework[edit]

Nette Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, no independent sources, tagged since 2018. Greenman (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence this is a notable framework. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Ge[edit]

Chun Ge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I think this is a non-existent term and there are not many related reference materials in the article. Meets the criteria of Delete policy 6. Neologisms, it is recommended to delete. SU YIQI (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, Internet, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chun Ge participants: Piotrus (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), Harrz (talk · contribs), and The person who loves reading (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suggested this to be deleted a few months back, saying sourcing is poor and article is confusing. Folks said 'sources exist in Chinese', without citing any or improving the article. At best I think we should move it to a draftspace or userspace if someone wants to work on this; otherwise, deleting this is no big loss, given how poorly written this is - it can be recreated from scratch if someone cares, with proper sources (WP:TNT) later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think anything has really changed since the last nomination. There's extensive sourcing at zh:春哥 which seems to be enough to meet GNG. As I said last time, the article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ambari[edit]

Apache Ambari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Apache Software Foundation projects as nom suggested. Pretty insignificant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group[edit]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HTML-Kit[edit]

HTML-Kit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't have enough coverage in WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV needed to meet notability guidelines. There's some brief coverage in books but nothing significant other than "it's an HTML editor you can use," and nothing else I could find that seemed reliable. Survived an AfD in 2005 solely on the basis of being "well-known." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The prior AfD (which was long enough ago that it was actually a VfD) is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Kit; the article was renamed a few months after that nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of prior deletion discussion, a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Usual software fluffery. Unreferenced since 2005. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]