Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hosting.com


Hosting.com (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)

Highly promotional article that is full of marketing links and unreliable self published sources. Some are routine coverage of their merger, acquisition and new branch opening in Bangladesh. This article doesn’t pass WP:GNG in anyway. May be deleted as WP:PROMO. I also suspect a WP:COI. Rht bd (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Rht bd (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of IPv6 support in common applications


Comparison of IPv6 support in common applications (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)

Complete failure of original research and WP:NLIST, starting from the title (who gets to decide what's a "common application"?) and ending at the absence of possible sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of numerical-analysis software


Comparison of numerical-analysis software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mess of original research and synthesis. Can't see any reason this passes WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If this article is kept, the colour-scheme of the "Cost" column should be changed. Using a reddish colour for paid, and amber for paid-but-free-to-academics is subtly judgmental, implying that demanding payment is bad, while mitigating this by only charging commercial users is less-bad. We're not here to make judgements on the ethics of commercialisation; our personal viewpoints on open-access resources shouldn't be allowed to colour (literally) our articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Delete. The scope of this list is too vague, making inclusion in it subject to WP:OR and making it unclear whether there is any source that considers this class of software packages as a group (WP:NLIST). Merely among the first five entries we have a package for statistical modeling (ADMB), a package for quantitative decision-making (Analytica), a scripting language (Ch), a spreadsheet-like data analysis and visualization package (DADiSP), and a redirect to a well-known and largely obsolete programming language from the 1960s (APL), none with sources. What makes any of these specifically numerical analysis, which our linked article defines as the study of numerical algorithms that find approximate solutions to problems of continuous mathematics, within specified error bounds? Numerical analysis is not merely numerical computation, but a specific style of analyzing algorithms used in numerical computation, and that focus on the analysis of algorithms appears to be completely missing from this list. Maybe the intended scope is not numerical analysis, but rather any kind of computerized analysis of anything that involves numerical calculations, but that is far too WP:INDISCRIMINATE to make an acceptable list. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
      Come to think about it, the very fact this whole list article fails to mention Linpack or Lapack is a rather bad sign. Elemimele (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

TJ The Frenchie

AfDs for this article:
TJ The Frenchie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with some citations coming from YouTube, X, and the official website. (There was also an LLM tag.) Htanaungg (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm not sure if NEWLLM applies here, since the author's account was made 4 years ago. But this is obviously LLM spam that fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Westpark Foundries


Westpark Foundries (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)

Entirely unreferenced minor licensing and distribution company. Searching the web and newspapers turned up nothing besides copy-paste descriptions of this article, and one director mentioning that Westpark distributed their film (https://www.gordonswilliams.com/merits). Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Yojo98 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete there was a 2013 CSD nom that was declined because of a mention of representing Oscar nominated directors, but the statement was referenced and I can't find evidence of it now. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - following WP:BEFORE, I'm not finding anything linking to this article or any sources covering this company. So I don't think it's possible to demonstrate notability or improve the article. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 02:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete – I found no WP:SIGCOV when I looked at this article briefly last week. If there is sourcing, it's in offline or hard-to-access repositories. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Elaine Carroll


Elaine Carroll (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 enough coverage in independent sources. Most of the good coverage I found is about her web series Very Mary-Kate or her involvement in the web series. Apart from that there are interviews and brief mentions of her involvement in other projects. My WP:ATD suggestion is to redirect her page to Very Mary-Kate. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)


List of countries with Starlink availability (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and the topic is not inherently notable as a standalone list. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Per similar outcome on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities served by Comcast. Delete. The website of Starlink (.com) is the best spot for finding out if Starlink is in your area. The WP:NOTDIR means wikipedia isn't a spot for listing where you can buy services (spam) from a company. And the laundry list of countries (and territories) is not inherently notable about starlink. Keep the main thing the main thing. Profits, employees, company highlights, key people, technology used, etc.
No other satellite, or cable companies on Wikipedia (that I see) have a long list of promotion of where to buy their services. Lastly, the countries/territories list is a long list of Twitter tweets which basically is another segment of the same conglomerate basically publishing press releases as "Tweets" saying they have entered a new country. That too doesn't establish notability on WP. CaribDigita (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Starlink is the first large-scale low-Earth-orbit satellite constellation. Its entry into each country requires government approval, spectrum allocation, security review, and coordination with local telecom operators. Therefore, its global availability is not a simple directory, but reflects broader geopolitical and regulatory dynamics as well as the progress of space-based internet deployment. Starship-spacex (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
This table is really about how Starlink has expanded over time, not just where it’s available today. As the largest satellite constellation ever built, its impact goes far beyond commercial internet. Similar projects—like the EU’s IRIS², China’s GW constellation, and Russia’s Rassvet—are mostly state-led, but Starlink alone is still much larger than all of them combined. For the first time, a privately controlled network has played a real strategic role in global conflicts, even influencing how wars unfold and whether governments can hold on. So when Starlink enters a country or region, it’s not just a technical rollout—it’s increasingly tied to politics, ideology, and emerging digital spheres of influence. Starship-spacex (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: But yet again. If it is soo "notable".by being overly (WP:NOTABLE) as it is formatted/written the overwhelming majority of references are literally Starlink's own sister company/unit (Twitter/X et al) basically publishing what amount to be press releases in the form of "Tweets" under its own corporate umbrella seeking to try to denote notability on WP. That seems like conflict of interest and rather WP:SELF primary source and WP:PRSOURCE. The tweets amount to their company's own press releases. The burden to establish notability would be truely independent sources sources showing/displaying such importance of such history. Not just their company tweets.CaribDigita (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Notified: Talk:Starlink. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment One person added this to the Starlink article, got reverted, then someone else put the information in its own article 5 days later, it then nominated for deletion hours later. Do articles normally list where their products are available in? Dream Focus 16:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed. Where you can buy satellite service isn't very encyclopedic by country and territory. I.e. The French overseas territory of Wallis and Futuna in the list. Isn't really notable to the Starlink company overall and that article just basically keeps adding more and more territories and countries. It made up roughly 1/3rd of the entire article. CaribDigita (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The focus is not on where Starlink is currently available, but on its historical expansion over time; similars can be found for other services like List of 5G NR networks or List of LTE networks Starship-spacex (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    The prose in the Starlink#Internet availability and regulatory approval section already explains the historical expansion, and perhaps some of the content from the table notes is noteworthy enough to be added to that prose. But the list as a whole clearly fails WP:NOTDIR #6 which tells us that an article should not include product pricing or availability information [...] unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention – yet the vast majority of the sources for the table are Starlink tweets, and the few independent sources are merely mentions of availability in individual locations, not discussions of availability as a whole.
    As to the lists of networks that you mention, they are not really comparable in that they are lists of individually notable services rather than availability of one company's services, and in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Apple Pay has a list of countries it has service in as a part of it. Same for Apple Store. List of Amazon locations is a list of fulfillment centers and other buildings Amazon has. It's not unique. Patken4 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFF. The List of Amazon locations article in particular is clearly also a WP:NOTDIR violation and ought to be deleted or seriously pruned, but that's a discussion to be had elsewhere. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    This was added to the Starlink article as early as five years ago and has since been refined by multiple contributors over time. Starship-spacex (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails NLIST and it also shouldn't be in the main article about Starlink per NOTDIR. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

NordProtect


NordProtect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article relies primarily on routine product coverage and primary/company sources, with promotional tone and excessive detail about services. Also concerns under WP:NOTADVERTISING. Niaki101 (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Merge with NordVPN as an WP:ATD. At least, there is one useful sources that can be added to the NordVPN article. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose merge. NordProtect and NordVPN are distinct products with different purposes (identity protection/insurance-type services vs VPN service). Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, separate articles are appropriate when topics differ significantly in scope and function, even if they share branding.
    Merging the two would likely reduce clarity for readers, as these services address different use cases and are often confused. Keeping them separate helps maintain clear topic boundaries and improves navigation. A brief mention of NordProtect in the NordVPN article would be appropriate, with more detailed coverage in a standalone article if supported by independent sources. SourceReliant (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely for UPE. That might not derail this nomination with the existing merge opinion (in an era where even merge proposals are part of AfD now); I have no opinion in any event. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see in-depth reviews in WIRED, cybernews, CNET, and Gizmodo. Should pass WP:NSOFT. But yes, needs pruning to a great extent to remove fluff. MediumFPS (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Obama is a schmuck


Previous AfDs for this article:
Obama is a schmuck (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)

1. A previous attempt at an article on the same subject has already been discussed on AfD, and the outcome was delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama chmo! (2nd nomination). 2. This is a very poor translation from the Russian Wikipedia, probably just a copy-paste from Google Translate, and shouldn't be allowed in the main namespace. Moscow Connection (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Noting that the last AfD was in 2016, and many of the article's sources were written after 2016. No opinion beyond that at this time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Moscow Connection hello. I've improved the translation. Feel free to improve the article yourself, instead of nominating it for deletion immediately. Concerning the previus AfD (2016), now the academic research cited in the article has appeared, so I don't see any reason to delete it. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Read this:
    This is a "raw or lightly edited" machine translation and should have been speedily deleted. And your membership in the extendedconfirmed group should be revoked. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Even the article's title is dubious. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but I don't have time to work on this article. It took you one second to push the "Publish" button. In my opinion, this article is not worth saving. Hopefully another ten years will pass and someone will do a better job.
    (I see now that you used the Wikipedia Content Translation Tool.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    You can always ensure you combine your habit of moving over content from the Russian Wikipedia with ensuring it meets the standards on the English Wikipedia, it shouldn't be up to others to clean up messes that you import from another Wikipedia project. TylerBurden (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
More information offtopic discusion of a Wikipedian ...
Close

Softaculous


Softaculous (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)

Appears to fail WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. Much like the recent AfD on Fantastico, a competitor, this article is cited to primary and unreliable sources, and I can't find anything published about it online that doesn't seem like an advertisement. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

* Delete Coverage is quite small. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Cuck chair


Cuck chair (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 is no evidence this subject passes WP:GNG. The article itself is a bit of juvenilia with a side of WP:SYNTH (see the winking, unsourced caption that says a piece of furniture that appears in virtually every North American hotel or motel room may be perceived as a cuck chair). The only source in the article that covers the concept itself is a Thrillist post that is based on quotes from a sex "coach" and a content writer who obviously have a vested interest in promoting themselves, plus an assortment of Tiktok videos. Neither interviewee in the article presents herself as an expert in hospitality furnishings nor appears to have any credentials in that vein besides being a occupant of hotel rooms. The remaining sources are brief WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of political coverage (, , , , ) that do not provide WP:SIGCOV of this concept, plus a mention of an mostly unrelated Dutch transit concept in the unreliable source KnowYourMeme. Synth attempting to link this to a different unrelated term has already been removed, but WP:OR about the origins of cuckoldry unrelated to this article remains (source 1 does not say anything about cuckoldry going back to 1275; our article indicates the term is older. I would be OK with outright deletion, but I am here proposing a limited merge of a couple sentences to cuckold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is rife with original synthesis and unreliable materials. There's not anything worth preserving here.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Which parts are you interested in merging? SenshiSun (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
If anything @SenshiSun, it would be something like "In the 2020s, some commentators described single chairs in hotel rooms as 'cuck chairs'. The term was used or referenced in U.S. politics by several Democrats to taunt political opponents." Not a lot to work with, and deletion may be a better option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 Merge that idea using 1-2 strongest sources and scrap the rest. SenshiSun (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. After the article's DYK nomination, I removed a paragraph on the ducking stool which sources portray as unrelated, and voiced concern at the nomination that this was calling out specific targets, like K.M. The Slate articles may be enough to justify content in the main article, so I wouldn't oppose a merge as framed by Dclemens1971. Rjjiii (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: The topic does not seem to be notable, and the sources present in the article certainly don't demonstrate notability. If a sentence or two on the topic is warranted in the cuckoldry article, it can be done independently in that article, but I don't see any reason to merge; this article has too many problems to be salvageable or for the history to be worth anything. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't see one or two usable sentences as worthy enough of saving to merge this. Otherwise this is WP:SYNTH based on trivial mentions. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. TarnishedPathtalk 04:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • In light of the comments in this discussion, while I think a merge is still acceptable (as I originally favored in my nom statement), I've come around to thinking delete is the most appropriate outcome given the poor quality sources and SYNTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yolo 247


Yolo 247 (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 of this company is largely limited to press releases and advertorials. Aside from the routine churnalism, there are a couple of passing mentions in connection with an investigation involving a celebrity who promoted this company's app. Falls well short of the sourcing standards expected at WP:NCORP. Also likely WP:UPE and WP:ACPERM gaming. Yuvaank (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Clear and obvious spam. Out the door it goes. MediaKyle (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The coverage is limited to unbylined promotional pieces and one incident with advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Alex Roshuk


Alex Roshuk (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)

None of these sources show a GNG/SNG pass:

  1. is a two line piece, slightly longer on the modern website, (though using a different first name), but glancing at the site's about me page reveals that it works much more as a distribution platform for Canadian artists than an independent source with a reliability for fact checking.
  2. Wikipedia mail list archive.
  3. Local interest story, very quote heavy, so there's not much independent content to pull from, but not bad.
  4. passing mention, gives middle initial, quotes him, and gives his age + one thing he did for Wikipedia. Hardly SIGCOV
  5. blog post from "Concurring Opinions, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company" Some stuff might be okay from a SME point of view on legal topics, but it's from the same author as the Emory journal and the vast majority of the blog post is just a quote from Roshuk
  6. NYFA profile appears to be an OK source (though dead), though from the tone of the bio I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not independent. Let's assume it is, though.

Other sources I found include a passing mention from the 80s listing him as one of 82 award winners, a passing mention of an award I think he won as a teenager (along with several hundred other students). But I can't really find anything else, and two sources (one fluffy human interest, one NYFA profile) isn't, imo, enough to prove notability. I'm open to a redirect to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)#History as an WP:ATD. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ashish Chanchlani (Actor)


Ashish Chanchlani (Actor) (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)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material:

[...] That said, it's quite likely the subject still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so I suggest people bring the article up for WP:AFD [...] SouthernNights (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would go further still and title blacklist if this is closed as delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep I came here ready to say, "Speedy delete" based on the previous deletions, but there now seems to be enough articles that discuss Ashish Chanchlani as the main subject of the articles. The articles seems to be independent (I'm not well-versed on Indian media, but the articles seem balanced and mostly neutral). If we keep this article, I suggest we remove the "Actor" from the article name. Angryapathy (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm the admin who considered the article for speedy delete. I determined the article didn't qualify for speedy delete under WP:G4 b/c article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted versions. However, after declining the speedy, I dug into all the new citations in the article and I now believe that the article's subject meets notability guidelines. The new citations are from reliable sources and also provide substantial coverage of the subject. As a sidenote, I struck the comment from me added above b/c it no longer matches what I believe about this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. Non-notable roles in non-notable web series.SamBordoloi (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not aware of his work as an actor in Bollywood or Indian films. This page shows his 1 role in YouTube short film/web series. Based on which, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Agree that YouTubers usually by default aren't notable. However, I suggest you consider checking out the web series Ekaki, which has 5 parts, one of which is over an hour long and the quality upon first glance seems movie like and releasing via YouTube must be a personal decision (if Indian cinema specifically Bollywood is hard to enter due to nepotism/groupism). Might be WP:TOOEARLY, who knows @SamBordoloi:. Wdym by non-notable role? Starring - Ashish Chanchlani, Written and Directed by Ashish Chanchlani, Producer - Ashish Chanchlani, Story & Screenplay - Ashish Chanchlani DareshMohan (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Regardless of Ekaki, he fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ACTOR clearly. Article is about the person not the webseries. Person is non-notable actor @DareshMohan that's why. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete There are multiple sources, but nothing that meets WP:BASIC: sources are interviews, trivial mentions, press releases, or sponsored (i.e. paid) content. For instance, The Indian Express is generally reliable for news per WP:INDIANEXP, but this piece is clearly not reliable or independent, apart from the fact that it is a short text that doesn't provide significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, And so the buck stops (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, and People. Retro music11 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. There is no indication that the sources in the article establish notability that is needed for an article as stated in the general notability guideline. This title and other variations should be salted so as to prevent yet another recreation. Aneirinn (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Viossa

AfDs for this article:
Viossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not pass WP:GNG. I was not able to locate any reliable sources covering this topic. ~Liancetalk 22:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Social science, and Internet. ~Liancetalk 22:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the problem tags on the article (not the potential GNG failure tag that was only placed this month)–the lack of independent sourcing, the apparent reliance on non-RS in general, etc.–have been present since October 2024, the month the current article was created. The first nomination was for an earlier article on this subject that was draftified, and that iteration was subsequently userfied to User:Frzzl/Viossa by its creator to presumably get it out of G13 consideration (note that he has not edited the current article in any capacity, and the current article was created in mainspace from scratch by someone else; the validity of maintaining an article-like page in userspace that is not intended as a draft–and userspace drafts are eligible for G13 as needed–is limited at best, but that would be a matter for MfD). No opinion on the current article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Keep: The subject is listed as high-importance in linguistics. It is an emerging subject of research, and while I agree that current sources either fail to qualify as SIGCOV or are sources too close to the subject, there exist independent sources which verify at least in passing that the subject is of interest to some fields. Note: I am a member of the Viossa community. Please consider this a COI declaration (another COI exists in my user page). GreatMageMai (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep: There is independent, non-trivial coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG at a basic level, even though the article currently relies too heavily on weak/primary sourcing. Viossa is also mentioned on Asterisk, an independent magazine of the San Francisco Bay Area. The sourcing problems noted in both AfDs (overreliance on self-published/community material) are valid, but remediable. Where independent coverage exists, this is an issue of article quality, not notability. Vydrakk (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
That source is possibly reliable, yes. Though there's only a single passing mention of the subject, thus WP:SIGCOV of GNG is not met. None cited in the article at time of nom qualify either unfortunately. Can you provide more? ~Liancetalk 03:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
The AISC2025 Book of Abstracts (Italian Association for Cognitive Science) also includes an abstract that uses “-and with experimental languages like Viossa (Baer, 2019; Nichols, 2021).” as a reference point, which modestly supports “attention beyond the immediate community,” even though it is not in itself SIGCOV of Viossa. There is at least some independent coverage beyond the source already identified from the National Museum of Language. The article on Asterisk discusses Viossa as an example of an emergent conlang/conpidgin, the HCC Times piece is weaker, but also independent and directly on topic. I agree that much of the current article sourcing is weak, but the existence of at least a small body of independent discussion suggests this is better treated as a sourcing/quality problem than as a pure “no coverage exists” case. Vydrakk (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

United States v. Stumbo

AfDs for this article:
United States v. Stumbo (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)

Source analysis to come, but to summarize, this article comes from a mix of unreliable sources (including a bunch of mailing list and forum posts) and articles that mostly focus on the Hushmail and steroids cases more generally. I'd suggesting merging to Hushmail or at the very least rescoping this to not be about one BLP. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm good with a delete too, by the way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No 67 words on Stumbo, less than 10% of the article ✘ No
Yes No random forum post ~ ✘ No
Yes No not every lawyer is automatically a subject-expert on even law, let alone cryptography Yes ✘ No
Yes No random forum post Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes ~ 141 words regurgitated from a DEA press release ~ Maybe
Yes Yes No 122 words on Stumbo, less than 10% of the article ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No basically nothing about Stumbo ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

[court documents and DEA press releases omitted, for obvious reasons] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is little to distinguish this from any other garden-variety criminal case, of which there are tens of thousands each year in the U.S. alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fail to see how this warrants its' own article. I mean of course some coverage can be found on any crime, but I'm not seeing any more coverage than could be expected for tons of other crimes, and certainly no WP:SUSTAINED coverage; the sources are all from 2007 which is when the crime took place (or the criminal case? Because I guess that's what the article indicates the title is about?) To be fair I'm certain I would have seen this pop up as a requested move by leeky on MOS:LAW#Cases grounds it wasn't for the fact it should be an article at all. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    • yyyep, that is exactly what would have happened 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sam Kiki


Sam Kiki (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)

Not remotely enough reliable sources focused on this entrepreneur to warrant an article. Poor-quality blockchain and crypto sources like NFT Gators, Bitcoinist, and CoinMarketCap.

Most sources focus on Kiki's blockchain casino Monkey Tilt and his former employer Game Play Network, not him. There are 8 sources just on the $30 million in series A funding for Monkey Tilt, among other routine coverage on his business. PROD was removed by the article creator. Bridget (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC) (edited 15:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC))

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Internet, and Nevada. Bridget (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - almost certainly WP:UPE spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 15:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed with above. ~2026-20104-38 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets GNG. Multiple citations from notable and independent media houses that are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Blessedandlifted (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Blessedandlifted: can you name those notable and independent sources in the article? The majority appear to have questionable reliability according to community discussions at WP:RSP, the closest thing I can think of when you vaguely refer to "Wikipedia standards" on sources. Bridget (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    The article includes coverage from established, independent publications such as Forbes, Sports Illustrated, and Complex, all of which are generally regarded as reliable sources and meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and verifiability. Blessedandlifted (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Right out the gate, that article by a Forbes contributor is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Bridget (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    So because of one citation, we will ignore the remaining cites from Sports Illustrated, Daily Express, Yahoo News, Complex and more? Blessedandlifted (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    SI (post 2019) and the low-quality tabloid Daily Express are listed at RSP (at WP:RSPSI and at WP:DAILYEXPRESS) due to reliability concerns. The Yahoo Finance articles (looks like the same article cited twice) are 2 of eight articles on venture funding. Not appropriate for a biography and not remotely meeting GNG. Bridget (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    The presence of weaker sources does not mean lack of coverage. Reliability affects weight, not truth. The subject still has independent mentions, and per WP:GNG, the focus is on whether significant coverage exists and not whether every single source is perfect. Blessedandlifted (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Was this written using AI? SecretSpectre (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets WP:NPERSON on multiple independent grounds. Winner of high stakes poker season 16, satisfies notability for winners of notable televised competitions and establishing standalone notability. In addition to sustained business executive roles. Not a WP:ONEEVENT case, as the subject’s significance is not tied to a single incident. Mygeey (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE— Mygeey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

* Keep: The subject has clear independent coverage and real world relevance beyond trivial mentions, making it a valid topic rather than an insignificant entry. Mjey24 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Mjey24 and Mygeey are Likely the same person or closely connected, and  Possible to be related to Blessedandlifted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - (1) we are not LinkedIn, (2) as I've written before, "Forbes is a crust of a shell of a carcass of a formerly reliable source.", (3) we are not CrunchBase, and (4) we can't allow our powerful critics to use this COI as an excuse to delete our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Pulsion Technology


Pulsion Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. I found this article but it is marked as sponsored. BookishReader (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, United Kingdom, and Scotland. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment The article was kept in 2012, and the sources that established notability back then were added to the article. I cannot access them in full, but the title of what appears to be the most in-depth one, Finger on the Pulsion; John McGuire is a man in his element. Darran Gardner talks to the e-commerce revolutionary whose firm Pulsion Technology is behind the ultimate net accessory is not encouraging with respect to WP:ORGIND. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Articles that simply regurgitate company announcements and interviews without including additional in-depth independent content fail the criteria for establishing notability. The full version of that article is available here through WP Library and is entirely based on an interview. HighKing++ 12:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Other XfDs

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI