[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

[edit]

Klevisa Ymeri

[edit]
Klevisa Ymeri (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)

Putting this up for the community to judge. This was nominated as an attack page; I don't think it's really that, given that all these negative points seem well-verified, but I am wondering if this rises to the required level of notability for someone who, apparently, is noteworthy only for negative things. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a encyclopedia not a news media. It should not contact articles about private individuals. For that open a news website and fill it with entries similar to it. Do you want to feed all the Wikipedia with recent news. Car accidents happen every minute everywhere around the world. Please know what this page is about. Due to some of you people, this website has become the most unreliable and the least scientific as it was years before, when only scientific or intelectual content was present. 146.0.16.235 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have coverage about cat memes, so this isn't necessarily the case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duanju

[edit]
Duanju (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)

Non-notable topic - the MIT source does not mention the article title, and the Chinese source seems to be a primary source and/or blog. LR.127 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peoples Daily Overseas Ed., AV Market Ushering in a Short Drama Boom 视听市场迎来“短剧热 [1] explaining the phenomenon in many paragraphs
  • Guangming Daily News, A Taste of "Cool" and "Sweet" - Don't let these short dramas dominate your life 一味“爽”与“甜” 　别让微短剧离生活越来越远 [2] a Zhejiang Normal University professor commenting on these videos
If there are any concerns about these sources, feel free to say so and I will continue my search.
I don't think the Guangzhou Daily News source linked in the article[3] is a blog entry, since it has a byline and doesn't have a disclaimer about user-generated content. I can't see any way it would be primary. Did I miss something?
Not specifically directed at this editor, but I have noticed a lot of nominations for poorly sourced China-related articles which have substantial native language coverage. To be sure, the problem starts with editors who create poorly sourced articles on China-related topics. But these nominations put a burden on a small number of en.wikipedia editors who follow this board and can handle Chinese language sources. The burden (per WP:BEFORE) is to do a reasonable search, and I believe a search that doesn't fully embrace native language articles is unlikely to be a reasonable one. Oblivy (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CG5 (YouTuber)

[edit]
CG5 (YouTuber) (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've done a source assessment of the citations this page, and it doesn't seem like this article passes WP:GNG, if we are to assume my assessments are 100% accurate.

As per WP:BLP, all sources must strictly adhere to the three core policies due to the sensitivity with these kinds of articles, and only two of this article's sources appear to do so. As such, I believe starting an AfD is the right path to take. Jurta talk/he/they 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov. Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not pass GNG. MasonJSO (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing switch

[edit]
Turing switch (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 significant coverage besides the original author; I could only find trivial mentions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no recognizable notability. --Zac67 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself Allen Swapan

[edit]
Myself Allen Swapan (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)

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y2cl

[edit]
Y2cl (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)

Likely to fail WP:NWEB/GNG KH-1 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swagger Sharma

[edit]
Swagger Sharma (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)

Non-notable youtuber. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of Sharma, and web searches reveal nothing that contributes to WP:GNG, just social media profiles, interviews, and paid-for advertorials. I don't think his work is significant enough for him to pass WP:NACTOR, either. Wham2001 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hammer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jens Hammer (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)

Non-notable "author" (blogger). Feels self-promotional. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of a non-notable figure Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suemonella

[edit]
Suemonella (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)

Non-notable TikTok account. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:22, 25 September 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl math

[edit]
Girl math (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)

Coverage is not sustained. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above and those in the article demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 22:38, 26 September 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.

Flash Element TD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flash Element TD (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 to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Kick channels

[edit]
List of most-followed Kick channels (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:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [23] [24] [25]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-followed Twitch channels & List of most-followed TikTok accounts, so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists, this list serves a valuable purpose by documenting significant trends in an evident and impactful space. Claims that the list is “unmaintainable” due to dynamic follower numbers are not strong enough for deletion. Other Wikipedia pages regularly update stats like revenue, sales figures, or most-followed accounts, and the content remains relevant despite being dynamic. As a growing platform, Kick has generated significant media attention, and reliable sources regularly cover its top streamers. Listing the top 30 most-followed channels does not represent an indiscriminate collection of information; it focuses on the most popular accounts on one of the newest major streaming platforms, essential for cultural and media studies. The argument that Kick's controversies are the only notability factor ignores the clear public interest in tracking which creators hold the most followers. I agree that it needs better citations, but that will be fixed with time. I know that editors, including myself, will maintain and update this list as needed. A note about the last update date should address concerns about outdated information. Deleting this list would limit Wikipedia’s ability to document the evolution of social media platforms, especially those rising in relevance like Kick.JeanSegura (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, we do not make deletion decisions based on what other lists (or articles) exist or do not exist on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that we're looking at this list's notability, not the notability of those other lists; those lists might be notable, or they might not, but the focus of this discussion is just this list. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and agree with you that each list’s notability should be considered individually. However, it's important to note that this list meets the same standards as similar lists, which is why it meets the inclusion criteria based on its own notability. You will find media online that covers kick followers, just as it does for other platforms. Reliable sources such as "NBC News" have show their follower counts and impact. I really think that the notability of this list is okay, as the list is not merely about individual creators but about Kick's social impact. JeanSegura (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbrella

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dumbrella (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)

While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Triangle and Robert (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'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([26]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([27]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dokibird (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 streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkltalk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This article was just at AFD two months ago, why was a new discussion started up so soon? We advise more time between visits to AFD unless the content is severely problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Culture Foundation

[edit]
Participatory Culture Foundation (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)

While there's some coverage in connection with their powering of AO3, it's not ORG level and I don't see where it merits mention at Archive of Our Own since the one source isn't great. Opted against PROD due to its tenure, but this is a borderline A7 with no sourcing found to improve it. Star Mississippi 18:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.рус

[edit]
.рус (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 good sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article literally says, twice, that there is a lack of information for use in writing about it.. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flirtini (app)

[edit]
Flirtini (app) (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 appears to be an advertisement for the app and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what should be removed to avoid this impression? Stia Pochotnaya (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Copyright violations have been corrected. Unreliable sources have been removed from the References. A complimentary description of the object, as well as quotes from marketing press releases, have been removed. No additional recommendations for improving the article were received from the nominee for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stia Pochotnaya (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Junlper (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)

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
    Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example you chose is something of an exception. It is a BLP issue and not a notability issue. Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the obvious BLP issues, any Chris Chan article might qualify for a WP:G10 deletion even. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Bad example I suppose. Macxcxz (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the Snickers dick vein probably should not have its own page per WP:NOPAGE despite reliable source coverage. However, the bar for inclusion of individuals does not require them to be responsible for multiple things that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only significant coverage of them and/or their work in reliable sources. For example, Junlper's suspension would not meet WP:NEVENT and should not have its own page, but the reliable sources that did cover it lend to her own notability. The latest article discussing her suspension in any amount of depth was NBC in January 2024. Since she went viral in February 2022 for the goblin mode tweet, that is almost two years of reliable source coverage, which seems enough to avoid deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider is marked as generally reliable for culture topics such as this one at WP:RSP. The Focus/Forbes contributor sources have now been removed, and the tweets are only used when the tweets are discussed in the article or under acceptable WP:BLPSELFPUB purposes. The guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA for Outlook India is primarily about hidden content, which is almost certainly not the case here, though the article subject is only mentioned in passingare multiple other sources that are far more reliable and in-depth. The previous deletion discussion happened amidst her ongoing controversy over the Twitter ban and seemed to indicate that she was indifferent about the page staying. Given that things have quieted down for her since then, do you have an updated statement from her on this? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A random shitposter on Twitter should not get a Wikipedia article. This is the very definition of non-notable. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: non-notable person, all sources are either unreliable or interviews (which usually aren't counted as references), article is written like a personal blog or a Wikipedia parody. The person has done nothing to be included in an online encyclopedia. Necatorina (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the sourcing in my comment below, but in respect to interviews from reliable sources, it depends on factors such as the split between interview/non-interview content (i.e. a detailed introductory section vs. jumping straight to questions) and how probing the questions are (i.e. factchecking vs. softballs). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is non notable and is article is just riding off the "goblin mode" thing Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.
With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOVWP:BASIC.
As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd raise an eyebrow over a third nomination in a year but the first two were misfires so it is fair enough to raise it again. That said, I think Patar knight has it right. She makes it over the line for Notability. There are multiple sources covering her for multiple things. Yes, some of those things are silly but that's not what matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on the sources: There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. I think this is more than enough. Notability is not temporary. DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This looked like a unanimous Delete but there are two recent Keep arguments that should be responded to but those seeking a Deletetion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. Reading the previous AFD, it seems like some editors, especially newer editors do not believe the article subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. But we don't make these decisions based on our own opinions (or that of the article subject) but whether or not reliable sources establish notability. So, a source review, which one editor arguing for a Keep has done, would be most helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Han Jiet

[edit]
Lee Han Jiet (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 biography of a Malaysian YouTuber fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are tabloid coverage of his engagement (excluded for notability per WP:SBST) and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I couldn't find any other qualifying WP:SIGCOV in my WP:BEFORE search, but given the language barrier happy to revise my opinion if SIGCOV is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A forum program by him invited deputy ministers had received coverage on newspaper headline.[1] His nickname always mentioned after the channel name 'BBK Network' in interviews of figures, such as this one with a movie director.[2] Despite on significant coverage, his channel seems not less notable than Keluar Sekejap with assumed smaller audience by locality, since only Malaysian Chinese watches it. Although most matters were attached to the channel, but as shown those news articles, his name was always directly referred to.

References

  1. ^ "政府太干预或国人须忍耐 经济专家政治人物经改不同调". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-03-17. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
  2. ^ "《五月雪》送审四次 张吉安曝电检通过关键". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
Neither of those links include WP:SIGCOV of Lee/Lucas; at most a passing WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

[edit]
The Methos Chronicles (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 doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1248841228"