Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Internet

JCW Lunacy

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

Not notable, glorified indie show, better served as a redirect or an article deletion. Lemonademan22 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is ridiculous. You can't use yourself as a source and claim "insider knowledge". This article is riddeled with original research, almost entirely primary sources, and unencyclopedic verbage. Lemonademan22 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but in terms of Wikipedia articles, most editors often find themselves walking a figurative tightrope. Besides, original research is something that in my opinion is a way to avoid plagiarism. Also, I know it was very rushed but the number of people in the pro wrestling media who have shafted the promotion is problematic. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is banned on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research. Stockhausenfan (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you all wanted me to remove it, just say so. Unfortunately, I was the only one who was editing because NOBODY else even bothered to do so. Despite the fact that JCW has been on the rise lately. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely zero evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect. Lemonademan22's assessment is spot on. In addition, the editor above has already admitted to WP:OR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Wrestling, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube suspensions

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

Fails WP:NLIST—I cannot find any sources discussing persons or channels suspended from YouTube as a group. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article also appears to contain factual errors—at random, the inclusion of Shane Dawson is false, as the source says his channel was demonetized, not suspended. Such falsehoods could constitute BLP violations. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to delete this list. If there is a lack of reliable, secondary sources about how many channels have been suspended from YouTube, then it might be strange to have an article listing YouTube suspensions. Plus, this article has been so big that, unless if one watches it, it has been hard to detect the multiple issues against Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons that the article attracts. The suspensions from YouTube may already be mentioned on articles about channels or people with YouTube channels.

So...

you can delete this. CarlFilip19 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Project

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

Fails the notability guideline for web content. All of the current sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources like blog posts. A quick search for more sourcing didn't turn up anything. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Computing, and Internet. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but it doesn't appear that the new information meets N:ORG either, so bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Internet, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Paradise

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

Article fails to meet notability requirements; it relies solely on two citations from YouTube and IMDb, and the Reception section only covers audience reception from IMDb. No results were found during my attempt to search for reliable sources. SleepyRedHair (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch Productions. I've failed to find independent significant coverage. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitbox (web series)

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

Contested blanking and redirection. Only cites a non-independent Reddit QnA and an IMDb entry, which is unreliable. I could not find any sources indicating notability of the series. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Australia. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glitch Productions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Public Radio

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

Contested prod without improvement. See page's talkpage for rationale. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Move to Draftspace - This is a fairly well-written page, but the sourcing is not strong enough or well-utilized enough. If works wants to continue on it, I could argue for moving it over to being a draft, although the fact that PROD was disputed without improvement makes this likely a failing idea. PickleG13 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have draftified it, but it wasn't eligible for draftification, except through the AfD process. I would have no problem with sending it to draft, as long as the editor agrees to put it through the AfC review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of firewalls

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

Only one reference of dubious reliability. The topic may arguably meet WP:NLIST, yes, but what we have here is 99% WP:OR (likely obsolete, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a legit thing to have, would be surprised if no good sources compare. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be almost entirely original research, therefore its accuracy is very unclear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Bros.

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. The article relies solely on primary sources, and reliable ones seem to not exist as per my research. SleepyRedHair (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glitch Productions. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth or secondary sourcing has been identified to support the general notability of the channel. Google News yields no mentions by reliable sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)

Thom Brodeur

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Unable to find coverage from reliable sources which is both independent and significant. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, Arizona, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trollface Edits

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

Not encyclopedic Polygnotus (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage from acceptable sources. The content itself is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unencyclopedic article in topic and content, failing WP:GNG. The author alleges that an unsourced traffic hit counter is "notable", which is actually the opposite. WP:N. Zero WP:RS, and all WP:USERGEN WP:FANCRUFT WP:TONE WP:NOTDIR. Personally, I would have done PROD because of WP:SNOW. — Smuckola (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and I agree with Smuckola that SNOW applies here. मल्ल (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron (company)

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

I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this blockchain company, even after searching for stuff under the founders' names and different variations of the company's name. The sources are all primary sources or routine coverage in unreliable sources. Not really anything that meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Aviation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is based on non-reliable sources, and not a single reference appears to be strong or convincing. If anyone comes across any reliable and in-depth coverage related to this topic, please do ping me, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’ve noticed that several of the sources included incorrect or broken URLs. I’ve corrected these where possible and removed any uncredited information. I hope this helps strengthen the article. Thank you! Lexiconia (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually a sign that the article was written by some AI. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, does not meet WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Credible sources used following a third iteration and notable verified information found within the platform X (formerly twitter) Blossom Index (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Twitter (and other social media) is not reliable and shouldn't be used as verification. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to support WP:NCORP notability. References consist of warmed-over press releases and routine coverage (funding, partnership, etc.) An independent search failed to find non-trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency and Wikipedia

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

My proposed deletion stated "This is a couple unrelated items of trivia, not a notable cohesive topic that needs a standalone article. It just duplicates info at Wikimedia Foundation#Finances and First Wikipedia edit#Non-fungible token sale so seems pretty pointless." Dualpendel added a prod2 that said "not a cohesive topic for an article, not notable".

Czar said on the talk page, "The article currently consists of examples that read as trivia. What corpus of dedicated material on the topic justifies a standalone article?" JaggedHamster noted "On a related point, half the article is about NFTs, which aren't cryptocurrencies", and AndyTheGrump replied "Good point. I see the article has been PRODded. If that gets declined, I think an AfD is in order. If this was about anything but Wikipedia, it wouldn't stand a chance of remaining, and I see nothing in policy that resembles a navel-gazing exception to WP:N. To add to the above, since the section that is about cryptocurrency concerns the WMF, rather than Wikipedia, it appears that none of the content actually discusses the supposed subject."

Unclear why Kvng removed the prod and prod2 tags, as he failed to give any reason or address the concerns. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - talk page discussion and this nomination are clear about it not being a notable and cohesive topic, and the article contents don't relate to the article title. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my unanswered talk page comments copied above. There is no significant topical link in reliable sources between these two subjects. czar 09:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable topic. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the comments I made on the article talk page, as noted above. A collection of navel-gazing trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A third piece of random trivia has been added that the Bitcoin article saw a viewership spike when it was in the news. How exactly is that meaningful? Literally every topic that's ever in the news has a resultant increase in readers. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a cohesive topic and so is not notable.

Dualpendel (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. This reminds me of the New Hampshire gadfly who connected Gene Robinson with PDF-Files in Boston. I mean, everything's a giant Venn diagram, but we don't have separate articles about them all. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can just move this into the draft space, I'll work on it later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, also the article is little promotional, may be a fan creation. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Internet, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a search myself and didn't find anything that would lend notability. Only thing I can imagine is that there are non-English sources available. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions, primary, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or otherwise unusable sourcing is all I find. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more LLM creation, actually. Which I suppose is not entirely exclusive with fan creation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article also lacks sources to verify its claims; therefore, it completely fails to meet the WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book Bucket Challenge

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

WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Charity where it is listed as a WP:ATD. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge

AfDs for this article:

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

After looking at BEFoRe, sources mostly shows only from the same year 2016 and there is no other reliable source from other year. This is a case of WP:NEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you linked to WP:NEWS as it points to Wikipedia:News, which is related to "news about Wikipedia." - Fuzheado | Talk 13:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think WP:LASTING is not met here. Weak delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but I am on the fence about that. The meme pretty much disappeared after the calendar flipped to 2017, and in 2016 where literally every person on the internet was talking about the "Mannequin Challenge". The coverage of the meme in the news and RS is almost unlimited. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Legacy" section shows some sort of an impact... It was still brought up during the pandemic [1], so it's not entirely forgotten. How often does a meme get discussed in peer-reviewed journals? I think that alone shows impact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Mannequin Challenge dataset is a thing. [2], being used by scientists as late as 2020. That's more legacy than the Chromebook Challenge has at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chromebook challenge is a revival of the Devious lick challenge. Nothing new ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an example of a viral phenomenon with a lot of cultural impact, which also has some academic analysis. See [3]. Clearly meets WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 07:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Music where it is listed as a WP:ATD. It doesn't seem to pass WP:SUSTAINED, appears WP:REFBOMBed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Guardian article is an opinion piece that is critical in nature. The author’s perspective is personal, analytical, and based on cultural critique. They do not view the Mannequin Challenge merely as an entertaining trend but as a reflection of societal psyche, responding to the fast-paced lifestyle of the digital age. This perspective is tied to the social-political context of 2016 (e.g., election tensions)[4]. The Herald-Mail article is also an opinion piece, highly critical and condemnatory. It meets the criteria for a review, as it includes the author’s clear opinion, evaluation, and sharp criticism, as it completely dismisses the cultural or creative aspects of the Mannequin Challenge[5]. -SachinSwami (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did the nominator do any research before stating "there is no other reliable source from other year?" A quick search shows not only numerous mentions of the Mannequin Challenge since 2016, but in 2019, there was a prominent technology story about its application to artificial intelligence: "Google researchers trained AI with your Mannequin Challenge videos: They used 2,000 YouTube clips to improve AI's depth perception." (Engadget). More links below.
- If you did the Mannequin Challenge, you are now advancing robotics research, MIT Technology Review, June 26, 2019
- Google researchers trained AI with your Mannequin Challenge videos, Engadget, Jun 27, 2019
- Mannequin Challenge videos teach computers to see, Sophos, July 5, 2019

Let's put our energies into better things than trying to delete clearly notable phenomena like these that have even been incorporated into scientific research. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skullbreaker challenge

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

Not independently notable after looking at BEFoRe. WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to clear faliure of WP:LASTING, whether or not it was even notable enough at the time. I cannot find any sources suggesting its long-term notability, impact, or influence. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Stunts where it is listed, as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Condom challenge

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

After it went viral at 2018, the meme was almost immediately forgotten. WP:NEWS 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Stunts where it is listed as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above: seems fine, this is the Chromebook challenge of a few years ago, it won't be (and isn't) remembered much past the 15 minutes of fame it got... Interesting bit of internet lore, but not independently notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke (warez)

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG, appears to be largely original research and can be succinctly explained in the warez article without the extensive technical detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Crime, Entertainment, Computing, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warez scene as an WP:ATD-R - It seems like the relevant content is already there without the need to merge content. The rest of what is in this article is more of a how-to or example list (or even unrelated content relevant to releases, but not necessarily nuking, from what I gather reading this). -2pou (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warez scene, which discusses the concept already. There's some coverage in reliable sources, but possibly not enough for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's very informative. 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We can probably combine all of this into Online piracy. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María José Estupiñán Sánchez

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that indicating any inherent notability. The facts in the article are sourced, but only because of details of her life being reported in the stories about her death. The death itself has been covered in many sources, but I am unable to determine if all of these different citations are truly WP:SIGCOV or just outlets retelling basically the same story (syndicated, chasing clicks, etc?). I don't think our notability guidelines suggest that every killing that happens to make the papers the next day are notable. This only happened a few weeks ago so hard to establish any long-term impact. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Duran) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Encyclopedic in the same way as Valeria Márquez. Encyclopedic as an emerging influencer, entrepreneur. The same sources on the latter's page (Valeria Márquez) were written after her death. María José Estupiñán Sànchez presents, as visible, a much broader entrepreneurial history than Marquez. A case of femicide that turned out to be very covered by the media in an international way, an emerging character like others before her who are present here on the platform. Submitting a deletion request for the article after a few hours of its creation is disrespectful to say the least.-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFF is important to remember, I'd suggest that Valeria Márquez (influencer)'s death received broader notice due to it being live-streamed and coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no excuse to judge her more encyclopedic than Estupiñán. As you can see, María José's career is much more documented and longer than Marquez's and I don't think the fact that she died live makes her more encyclopedic than the other. María José's death was also partly caught on camera, but this reasoning and justification make no sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having a hard time following your arguement, but please remember this isn't a comparative exercise. Either the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez meets our notability guilelines or it doesn't. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let me tell you that it follows all the rules. And also the reason why you asked for the deletion of the page makes no sense nor the justification you gave about being killed live. These are not valid reasons nor should they be taken into consideration. Marquez's being killed live does not detract from being killed, partially filmed by Estupiñán's cameras. That makes no sense and is not a justification. I believe that one is encyclopedic regardless of the way one is killed, and the fact that one girl was killed live is not a justification to diminish the encyclopedicity of the other, nor to justify that of the first. Instead of resorting to these page deletions, which somehow diminish the work of those who deal with these things, just insert a notice of "source needed" or look for these extra sources, avoiding resorting to these drastic and (at least on this page) very inappropriate and meaningless methods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person appears to have had no coverage before the death... Not that I can find. There is lots of discussion around the death itself, that might be an article. The person appears non-notable before passing away. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Maybe change the title to "death of María José Estupiñán Sànchez" as the author of the deletion process did with Valeria Márquez who is in the same situation as her. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez".
María José Estupiñán Sànchez → Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this title change instead of unnecessary deletion of the page:

Valeria Márquez was a social media influencer, and entrepreneur. She collaborated with brands. I think you are wrong in stating that she is more encyclopedic because she died live.
María José Estupiñán Sànchez was a social media influencer at the same way, and entrepreneur. Unlike Marquez, he owned 3 businesses, not just 1. She also collaborated with brands as Marquez. Her death was partially filmed, since you apparently base your beliefs partly on this. The moment of death does not determine its encyclopedicity, but indeed Estupiñán's page is much more compact and with more information than Marquez's. Given the situation, a title change is fairer, as is being done with Marquez herself who is in the same situation as her, even if for her there was no talk of elimination, but of title change, which here was not even taken into consideration before asking for deletion, in fact not caring about the contributions of those who created the page in question, or this one. So I am for title change and not elimination. If you delete this, then you also delete that of Marquez, because they are in the same situation.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation of the page and the unwillingness to cooperate from those who asked for the deletion of the page, I ask for a WP:3O, so that it is visible to everyone that the page Valeria Márquez has nothing more than this one, and that the deletion is incorrect, and it would be fairer to change the title to "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez". Let's see what the difference between these two influences would be. Both entrepreneurs (she from three businesses, Marquez 1, both influencers, both content creators, both with ties to brands and promotions, both models and emerging artists. The only difference is that one died online in front of so many people, the other is partially dead in front of so many people, you can't see the exact moment. Thanks. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting here (seeking a third opinion) is inappropriate. This is an ongoing WP:AFD discussion that follows a particular process. I suggest you read through that page to get a better understanding. Further, this particular discussion is about the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez; discussion of other articles belong elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your motivation for deleting the article and the fact that you don't understand that there is no difference with the article on Marquez and the fact that you evidently don't care about contributing adequately are useless, inappropriate and futile reasons. The request for elimination itself is useless, it makes no sense to have proposed it when the article on Marquez is here. The fact that we have asked for a meaningless deletion when there is an IDENTICAL page is shameful. Unfortunately, I am forced to talk about Marquez because it is the only way to make people understand the uselessness of this discussion. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you submitted the request for elimination without considering anyone else and without thinking of less drastic solutions. This says a lot about respect for others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:AGF, and don't tread into WP:NPA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking for deletion, it is checked. And the request is useless as long as there are articles like Marquez's. So yes, it is not a legitimate nor correct elimination. Name change is correct and your reasons are very unfollowable and arguable. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, ~~nine~~ (now) ten of your comments here have compared this article to the one about Marquez. Comments at AfD should address the article under discussion, not compare it to other articles. All that matters here is whether the Sanchez article meets our notability criteria. Whether the article is similar to Marquez's article is irrelevant. Perhaps the Marquez article should be deleted too. Continuing to harp on the Marquez article just weakens your case, as it may suggest to people evaluating this discussion that the article does not satisfy notability, and arguments based on analogy with other articles are all that you can come up with.

I would also agree with ZimZalaBim that your comments here are unnecessarily hostile and personalized. Discuss the article under discussion, and do not speculate on the motives of other editors. Everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if they disagree with you. CodeTalker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question justifies the presence of one article on another without providing adequate explanations and without having consulted anyone. The same person has no interest in improving the article and the same person treats me as IGNORANT by continuing to report rules and apparent laws, this is a very inappropriate behavior. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I talk so much about Marquez, it is because the user in question justified the presence of her article by talking about the way she died. This is not a motivation and the guidelines establish it, and the same person has always been pointed out by other users that his ways are not right or correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't know how to argue without citing rules says a lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this explains a lot of how you react - this isn't about arguing, but about properly applying our WP:POLICIES. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are evidently not able to follow given the inappropriate, useless request for deletion when you yourself justified the presence of Marquez's article as having been killed live, which is irrelevant. I think I will pursue the request for a name change, given the inability to guarantee adequate explanations. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this is clearly a BLP1E case. The subject has no notability apart from her murder. The murder itself has some coverage and may warrant an article, although only about 1/3 of the current article is about the murder so it would require some restructuring. Almost all of the sources are in Spanish which I am not qualified to evaluate, so I won't offer a firm opinion on whether an article about the murder is warranted. (Also two of the five English sources are unreliable.) CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles on Wikipedia that mainly talk about murder cases but have a section on the subject's biography, although it is not the main focus. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I added some other English sources that I think are reliable and good. Obviously I didn't add all the sources, but internet is literally full of news regarding Estupiñán Sànchez. I added the statement by Human Rights Watch and news-related as I think are reliable and important for the article. Personally I think her notoriety cames from this. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Creating Killing of María José Estupiñán per COMMONNAME, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of María José Estupiñán, as it is the (horrific) event that is notable and got widespread media coverage as well as global condemnation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Also, it's time to hear from some new voices, please. Maria, please don't WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who renamed the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this article is a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I think we need to apply the Wikipedia: Avoid other stuff exists argument in this case. All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for this reason, like many other pages, it must be renamed under another title as happened to other pages, which had nothing of notoriety apart from death. Making comparisons is necessary, because this reasoning is not very correct: articles that arouse notoriety due to the death of a subject are many. And this is one of those cases. The biography of the subject may not have been treated before death, which is very common usually even for articles present here, but this does not diminish its value, when the person dies and his death generates notoriety. It's a normal thing. And it is normal and right that I cite other examples on this encyclopedia that are accepted and maintained in pages under titles such as "killing of...", because otherwise it would make no sense to discuss or even carry out this deletion procedure. Other users have reported the need to keep the page but change the title. Which is much more correct and respectful than an elimination that does not make much sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event." I take this statement of yours into consideration. Very often notoriety is brought after death, although the person before it was not known exponentially. This does not change its encyclopedicity, if the tragic event for which the subject passed away is the reason for such encyclopedicity, and the same event generated a wave of protests in a state, generating indignation, international coverage from the most authoritative newspapers. Encyclopedicity is not dictated by what one necessarily does in life, but also by other factors, and among others, the Estupiñán Sànchez case, by death. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Duran

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered by some news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that, or even of the death itself really. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable-well, I think reliable-sources there from at least two different countries that demonstrate notability, on newspapers from Argentina and Chile and Infobae which is of international reach. Some sources even call her a narco-queen. Jeannete Jeanette Soprano Martin (aha?) 03:39, 29 May, 2025 (UTC)
Keep The page can be expanded with sources and information from the multiple sources about you online. There is a lot to write about her history with drugs and her career, there is a lot of information online and she was nicknamed Narco Queen in this context. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at least, it's better to change the title to "death/killing/murder of Sabrina Durán" like how probably it will end for Valeria Márquez or María José Estupiñán, so citing all the Biographical traits in a section before the murder. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina is notable for something not just her unfortunate death, the user who nominated this article for deletion didnt do enough research it seems. Imai akirah (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I know. But since they are thinking of changing the title of Valeria Márquez's page to "death of Valeria Márquez", I suggested the same for this page. In any case, I implemented the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename "The Killing of Sabrina Durán". There’s nothing to establish notability prior to her murder. Per WP:SINGLEEVENT there seems to only be coverage of her death. The Narco Queen nickname is entirely insufficient.Hy Brasil (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Renaming it "death of Sabrina Duràn" is more correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of Sabrina Duràn".
Sabrina Duràn → Killing of Sabrina Duràn. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, unclear why you're singling me out for this, but you've made this comment a few times now here. Note this is a discussion to gauge consensus, you're not trying to convince me personally of something.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you requested deletion for a page that apparently - we have noticed, not only I but others also did - not know enough. I repeat, it doesn't seem to me that Valeria Márquez's page creates problems for you, so I don't see why this should be. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale by nom WP:SINGLEEVENT. Nothing but routine news coverage as evidenced by the date of the sources, all of which are from the last week of October 2023. Person was non-notable before their death, and is still non-notable after their death, with no sustained coverage. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21 links, mostly on reliable sources, from different countries indicate she is.Jeannete Not the Narco Queen Martin (aha?) 07:04, 4 June, 2025 (UTC)

I fear you are failing to understand the meaning of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SINGLEEVENT. Notability isn't just about counting links. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It might be helpful to analyze the actual state of sourcing, with a specific source analysis. Also, if we want to treat it as an event, does that event meet WP:NEVENT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a minor criminal of no broad notability. One could write a thousand articles like this. However, if w're going to have her let's spell her name correctly: it's Durán, not Duran. Athel cb (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is clearly WP:SINGLEEVENT. At best, we can rename it "death/killing/murder of Sabrina Durán" as others have suggested, but the subject seems non-notable outside of her unfortunate demise.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs