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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

8XR (game engine)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. Created by a sockmaster (prior to block, not G5 eligible). I found that nearly every source used made no mention of 8XR at all. The two remaining sources are interviews/promo/non-independent. WP:VG/S's reliable source search has zero results. General efforts to search up any other coverage, reliable or not, for an "8XR engine" found essentially nothing. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't access one of the sources (it's a dead link), but the one I can access, while it is a suspiciously promotive interview, does have a significant amount of non-interview content. It's like the first half of the article. You can maybe argue it's not reliable (it does seem suspicious), but it can't be immidiately dismissed as just an interview. Also googled and could not find sources, so I'll vote Delete if no one can find any more sources than this. (given we have 1 dubious source and an unarchived dead link) Mrfoogles (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the top half isn't really an interview (though highly promotional). But there's no way I'd view that blockchain site as a reliable source. They are a paid group blog without apparent oversight. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any reliable sources can be found, given that the sources available are (1) unreliable (see https://blockster.com/membership) or (2) inaccessible and unarchived, and also odd given the earliest available blog post on that website is from 2023 Mrfoogles (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources given to indicate notability are deadlinks/primary. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nomination. I can't find any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg

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

Submitting for AfD as I believe there should be a discussion over the merits of this article. While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.

Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the 10 year test it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.

As a result I believe this should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be a tongue in cheek idea that never happened. It's subjects are certainly notable but the non-fight isn't— Iadmc ♫^talk 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be mostly celebrity nonsense. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I might rename this article, but this is pop history at this point. The fight never happened, but the "celebrity feud" was a thing for almost two years. This is about as important as the White Bronco chase a generation ago, but it's a thing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I think it's rather perverse to compare a non-event media spat to events surrounding a double-murder, your argument is actively in favour of delete given that the White Bronco chase isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Too soon to delete as Musk recently revived discussion about it. Weakipedist (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Right now, it's worthy of a brief mention on the subjects' pages, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think it may be worthy of brief mention on the subjects' pages. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raba Khan

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

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them.
The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual.
No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable.
And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.
Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source analysis:

This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her
A short interview with a little more significant commentary
Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement
An entire article on her, which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid.
Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list
BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers, only a little but it is there
More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner
Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
Short article

Plus:

So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of eBay

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

Duplicates the content at eBay#Criticism, goes against the advice at WP:CRITS to not generally create separate articles for criticism in particular. The sourcing, meanwhile, shows examples of individual instances of criticism, bu does not cohesively discuss "criticism of eBay" as a topic. This should redirect to eBay#Criticism, as already previously proposed by way of WP:BLAR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Mostly it's crap, and the small non-crap part belongs in the main article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per nomination, topic doesn't need a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyes on Rafah

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

This article is about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.

The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:

Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this "AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.

The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:

The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mainly about the image and associated social media protest. It's perfectly valid to write encyclopedia articles about notable images. The AI image does warrant an entire article for itself, based on its cited coverage in reliable sources.

50 million people posting this image was also an event/phenomenon. It was directly compared to Blackout Tuesday by myriad reliable sources. Any deletion arguments here apply equally to Blackout Tuesday; neither should be deleted. The next significant coverage about the next social media protest in the future will surely mention both.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia article can be written about a notable image or photograph. We have thousands of such articles on wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the GNG, has generated widespread coverage across a range of sources. For example, these sources are all entirely devoted to covering this event:

Associated Press
Al-Jazeera
NBC News
BBC
NPR (which calls it the internet's most viral AI-created image ever)
Vox
Time
Washington Post
Wired
The National (UAE)
France 24

Along with articles covering the phrase along with the image such as the NYTimes. No actual case for deletion exists here, this clears the GNG easily. nableezy - 16:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also news of "Where is Kate"? And that article is deleted. You have not said any reason how it supports wikipedia's scope to be here. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers notable events, this is one per the sources I just cited. nableezy - 17:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is about routine news coverage, not full length articles about an event. It simply does not apply here, and no matter how many people parrot the same bogus claim it remains a bogus claim. nableezy - 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can hardly be described as an event... Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is based on nothing. The sources are clearly treating it as noteworthy event and are giving it in depth coverage. nableezy - 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nableezy's list of sources above. Additionally, most slogans don't receive even a fraction of the coverage this one has clearly received, especially through WP:RS. Pretty much reiterating what PK-WIKI stated earlier, but the AI-Generated image in particular has been widely publicized as a key example of performative activism and it's very clear that this entire slogan has met WP:GNG standards at this point. Most votes in favor of deleting the article so far have vaguely referenced WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS without making any sort of clarification as to how this article specifically violates such policies. I particularly don't see how this violates NOTNEWS, this is not "offering first-hand news reports on a breaking story" or constituting as a primary source. B3251_(talk) 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Having sources does not warrant having an article for an internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.
- The article is predominantly about an image. The image can exist on commons and information / events can be put in other places.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A political slogan is not an “internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.” Somebody in favor of deleting Blackout Tuesday, which drew many parallels with this, could use the same argument; that does not make it true nor does it warrant deletion for that article or this one. Unless we know where exactly information about this can be merged into, we shouldn’t be vaguely suggesting that it should just be moved somewhere else. B3251_(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a pro-palestine slogan, yes. But the reason it gaines coverage is because of the internet phenomenon. No materialistic action/event took place.

I have an opinion on where it could be merged - Rafah offensive where it gained traction. In the reactions section.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is the 50 million people sharing it. nableezy - 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuguu

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The Telegraph article is about Powwownow and just mentions why they are acquiring Yuuguu. The TechCrunch articles are PR articles. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atala T

AfDs for this article:

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

Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with absolutely no sources on this subject. Looks like the original creator just recreated the deleted article 15 years ago and no one noticed until now. Better late than never. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORPDEPTH. A search of the company name brings up no relevant information or coverage (other than the wiki article itself). ADifferentMan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the sources are deadlinks and the other don't contain the company's name, clearly not notable enough. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [1] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (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, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters

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

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swampy Marsh: for now? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at that target. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem that was easily fixed. See Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and now it's borderline WP:UNDUE. Seriously, a not-yet-extant project with minimal RS coverage should not get more characters than a Phineas and Ferb revival, should it? Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have more characters? There’s a whole multi paragraph section about Phineas and Ferb, compared to a single sentence that mentions the announcement of the SALEM show. Doesn’t appear to have any DUE issues. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with ONE sentence mentioning it and turning it into a redirect as Musky Yank proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's one sentence on this (as added) and one sentence on the 2024 planned revivial. That's probably UNDUE. That is, this is such an insignificant part of Marsh's career that per DUE it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep.~~ But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Update: I am changing my opinion to the following: Redirect to Swampy Marsh (first choice) and Draftify (second choice). This counts as my solitary vote for this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree, that's why I stand by my previous opinion. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest).Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.

I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a ~~weak keep or redirect (second option)~~ my above mentioned !vote.

I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). My !vote is mentioned above. If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.^[1]^[2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.^[3]^[4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Note: I added the new text: "My !vote is mentioned above" but have not changed any other part of this comment, apart from doing a strikethrough for some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.

As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.

Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about things going "my way," I'm just saying that what will, probably, happen if a certain result is reached. I have no influence over whether people are convinced to keep the article or not. Their decision is their business and it seems too time consuming to try and convince people here to change their minds. People already have their minds made up and there's nothing I can do about that. At this point, all I hope is that the page becomes a redirect. If it doesn't, then oh well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't right or wrong; if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here. We have rules in place and this will fall apart if we don't follow them, "just because" isn't a valid reason for keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles here. I understand your sentiment that deletion isn't right or wrong but that "if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here" and that there are rules. However, bias always plays into discussions such as this, whether people have that bias willingly or unwillingly. In any case, and at this point in the discussion, I maintain that this article has ENOUGH value to qualify for a redirect. If the series DOES release this year, which I see as not outside the realm of possibility (anything is possible), and reliable sources attest to that release, THEN it can come back into the article mainspace. The idea it has NO value and should be wiped away and thrown in the trash bin is wholly incorrect, as you and the others foolishly favoring deletion (rather than any alternatives), are trying to claim.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, but we don't need to be creating walls of text at this point; I've said my part, and you yours. I think we're at a good point now, let's leave it at that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. ~~I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence.~~ Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I could do that, ~~but personally I think a redirect would be preferable as I already have many drafts / articles in progress.~~ Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through part of my comment so there isn't any confusion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure a redirect is appropriate; this project has been around since 2019, if it's not become notable by now, redirecting to this person's article doesn't bring anything of value. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It does bring something of value. For those who are interested in Marsh, who is a BIG name in the animation industry, it only makes sense. Your continued harping that this article doesn't bring anything of value to Wikipedia is sounding like a broken record. It is not productive to ending this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target isn't mentioned at Marsh, though, so it might cause confusion for people who are trying to find it. Spinixster (trout me!) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be confusing if we added in one or two sentences about it, using the formulation I mentioned above. If it comes to it, I would be fine with a draft, its just at this point in the discussion and since no one else seems to support "weak keep", a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't draft, it's been around since 2018/2019, if it hasn't become notable in the 5 years since, I wouldn't count on a sudden influx of critical notice making it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that view. While I personally would lean more toward a redirect, a draft for me, wouldn't be completely out of the question. Historyday01 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closer may note that the prime author of this article has peppered bolded opinions (e.g., 'a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.) throughout this discussion, which might be mistaken for multiple !votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's only because my original opinion was "weak keep" but after continuing this discussion, I later changed to redirect as a first option and draft as a second option. So, that is, in sum, my vote, as it were, for this AfD. It was not my intention to have them mistaken for multiple votes, but rather just restating my opinion as connected to different discussions within this AfD. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've "unbolded" them all except the first "votes" but there were a lot of them. Historyday01, please stop doing this, it could be seen as disruptive editing and could get you blocked from this discussion. Only bold your original "vote" and not other comments that could be mistaken for additional votes in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But, I no longer agree with my original one, so, I changed it to my updated opinion. You don't need to say its disruptive editing or will get me blocked from this discussion, as that only poisons the well for everyone else who engages after this point. I have gone through and updated the text so as to make it more clear what my own opinion is. I was not being disruptive in any sense, I was only restating my opinion. This whole AfD should have never happened (which happened on Pride Month of all times), but here we are. I also personally don't think relisting this will be productive either (if I have to guess, it will never lead to anything positive). I am abandoning this discussion. I have no intention of ever returning. I've already shared my views here. That is all.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Delete, Redirect, Keep and Draftify. A reminder, only BOLD one vote that reflects your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you change your mind, strike any previous votes. Do not unnecessarily bold words that might be confused for additional votes or it could be seen as disruptive editing. One editor=One vote. Also, avoid bludgeonining any discussion. If you find yourself repeating your comments, cancel your post and move on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good redirect target. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable: subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG (sourcing is very weak, much of it actually deprecated) and there is no obvious redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with what you are saying and @Traumnovelle, here (see my above comments for that). Other editors have noted a suitable redirect target. Please engage with those editors on that topic, as I no longer wish to participate in this discussion (I've already said enough), which could have been solved through a discussion on the article's talk page rather than bringing the page to AfD, but none of the editors involved (either the OP, or anyone else) decided to go that route, unfortunately.Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be undue to mention this on his page given stuff that actually has a Wikipedia article is only listed in the infobox and given no prose, and a redirect on it's own would just confuse the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result

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

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but page looks to me to've been AI-written. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt. The article was created in 2007 and BLARd in 2017. Jay 💬 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Prob not then. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [2] and [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has gained traction in the mainstream media and passes WP:GNG News Laundry ,Hindustan Times ,India Today ,BBC ,The News Minute,The Indian Express,Deccan Herald,The Economic Times ,NDTV ,Scroll ,News18.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, all of the sources listed above come from the same time when the meme was trending. No evidence of lasting coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Pharaoh of the Wizards, passes WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)

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

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

Scott

p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [4] and [5] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previously I nominated this article for Afd and my view still same. There is no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star tag link you showed popped paid/sponsored articles [6], [7], [8], and [9]. They doesn't credibly means this article won't met notability later. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and know there isn't any amount of sources you add to a non notable person to be notable. On the aspect scene of YouTube, famous people are celebrities bur that doesn't mean try are notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.

See his marriage news from Prothom alo, Dhaka Tribune, The Business Standard.

Older articles about him also show his prominence.

See these article from Prothom Alo 1 2, Bangla Tribune, The Business Standard, Jagonews24

Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is notable on YouTube as an influencer & content creator. but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia.--DelwarHossain (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[piper-1] Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here

[incon2020-2] "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.

[3] Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[4] Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]