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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet/archive

See also: computer-related deletions.

Iobi

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

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

This has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Network Advertising Initiative

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

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

This has some coverage and is borderline, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are dozens of mentions in the New York Times alone. Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [1]. Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ListenBrainz

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

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

This was originally deprodded because one user claimed, there are over half a dozen pieces of research involving ListenBrainz listed in Google Scholar, including a textbook on recommender systems. it [sic] is covered in the EFF's writeup on MetaBrainz. this should cover points 1 and 4 of software notability. When I redirected it to MusicBrainz because its notability was pretty thin, it was reverted because it seems notable, go to AfD if you disagree. So, here it is.

May rationale is that none of the content in that article assert notability. Like all the articles about MetaBrainz products, it is there to sell the product than of encyclopaedic nature.

One cited sources by EFF talk about Musicbrainz with a disclosure that one of the staff member of the cited source being a board member of MB. Two of the other cited sources are paywalled, thus inaccessible, the rest are primary or are not reliable sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Being paywalled has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or usable -- see WP:PAYWALL, which is part of official policy. I don't have access to those papers so I can't weigh in either way on them, but "two of the other sources are paywalled" is not a valid argument. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I am not saying that it's not. I'm saying how will I know without seeing it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• del no independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musicadium

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

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

I couldn't find enough significant sources to prove it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Either delete or redirect to Valleyarm (though, realistically, the redirect target might be next for AfD). Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete more than 10 years not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations --Loewstisch (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StarzPlay by Cinepax

StarzPlay by Cinepax (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)

Service is defunct as of 2024 and cited sources are unreliable, i.e. sponsored posts, press releases, etc. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Internet, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Agreed with above points, there is enough wrong with it that it would be too much trouble to edit it into an acceptable state, and even then I don't think it would be notable enough. The brief coverage the topic is given in Starz is probably enough. Endersslay (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge salvagables into Starz#Lionsgate+, where it seems the details about Starz's international streaming services have been placed (the service mentioned here is now called Starz On, by the way, and is hosted here). Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starport: Galactic Empires

Starport: Galactic Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to pass General notability guidelines Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I wouldn't necessarily say delete it, but rather draftify it. The article currently has only one source which I think is from a more or less, promotional site or something. If the editor has any other sources to add and remove whatever source they have there, then it's safe to put it in the draftspace. Otherwise, I agree. This might have to be deleted.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, actually, I re-reviewed it, and yes. My opinion has changed, so I agree. Delete. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Like in the previous AfD, there don't seem to be any reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: A clerical note — I moved this AfD to fix a strange title error; previously it was "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/page=Starport: Galactic Empires (2nd nomination)". This is the kind of thing that tends to break stuff, so I just fixed all the pages' source that referred to this one, and hopefully everything is fine now. jp×g🗯️ 03:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPer

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

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

This non notable software is long defunct and forgotten. It was never notable, and claims on the page about it being a first, in 1996, are dubious at best. Other tools already existed. There are no citations on the page, and the citation needed tag has been there for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Article is in shambles with too many external links inserted. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DO NOT Delete. This tool is still alive and became commercial, PaperKiller and HyperPublish - it is available at Paperkiller.com and HyperPublish.com (VisualVision.com) - Please cite other tools that where WYSIWYG and that allowed visual linking and visual navigation between pages while in edit mode in 1996, if they exists. They do not exist. Otherwise this page that is very old would have been edited to point to them. This is probably the first really visual tool and this page should remain as noticeable track: if on the Web we do not keep track of the first products for the Web, where they should be noted? 188.216.49.45 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, for instance, Adobe PageMill was released in 1994. However you mention it went commercial which might suggest that there is a notable subject in the commercial software. Do you have independent reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability of PaperKiller? If so, it may be that that should have a page and this would either be merged to that or else this could be kept and moved to that title and repurposed. But first, we still have to establish the notability of the subject, so we need the sources. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Modular Data Center

Google Modular Data Center (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)

The article has been pointed out as a possible hoax filled with misinformation. You can see the talk page. I couldn't find reliable coverage of the actual subject of the article without the ones copied from this article in mirror sites. The article's sources showcase that Google has a patent, but there's no proof or coverage where it establishes that it got developed. X (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - appears to be repeating a rumour and consequently there is a danger of spreading misinformation. Even if there was better sourcing, I doubt specific data center could really be considered to be eternally notable. JMWt (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Found this. I don't comment further. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Hoax or not, all I found was this, so this fails both WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kekma Forum

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

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

No coverage from reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete No notable coverage, maybe redirect to Shock site. It's not a very notable meme, either. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Possible speedy delete per A7, as it says that the website holds a “significant importance to meme culture”, but never explains how so. The Know Your Meme link might count, but there are far more notable memes without Wikipedia pages. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Sources provided do not justify this having its own article. This page was also previously speedy deleted under a previous title (KEKMA FORUM in all caps). Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Hafouzlik

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

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

No indication of notability, sourced only to open wikis. Draftification was contested. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Islam, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7. It’s just some hobby universe on Fandom that has five followers. Probably made up by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original characters. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Its not an original character, it is a meme ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy delete sry but Wikipedia is not the place for your personal memes and fandom is not a reliable source Killarnee (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philadelphia Front Page News

Philadelphia Front Page News (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)

Defunct news website that I cannot find any coverage about (it has a name similar to many other notable publications). There are a couple of Facebook pages with the name and activity still going that don't lead to anything. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage about Philadelphia Front Page News (formerly known as the Van Stone's Digest) in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete a newspaper published on Blogspot, no mention of it can be found online to fulfill WP:GNG requirements. I'm surprised the page survived on Wikipedia for so long. Broc (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miami mall incident

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

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

Non-notable event with only primary news reporting that is likely to lack persistent coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Crime, Events, United States of America, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Brief viral social media incident. Agree for reasons stated it's very much non-notable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable meme that didn't last long. Initial burst of coverage, but it's been largely forgotten about now, a month later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:10YT. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat riot, which was kept, it involved a Level 4 mobilization, property damage, and a social media influencer getting arrested—with all the resultant drama. This one purportedly had a citywide mobilization also, so if a reliable source can be found for that (only mention I found was a police chief blurb on a TV report) I would consider redirecting to List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States. And the alien stuff is just silly. In the meantime, only one injury and four arrests does not a riot make. Note the opening sentence begins, "The Miami mall incident was a small riot ..." and the closing sentence begins, "Rolling Stone magazine wrote of the incident, 'Why this large though unimportant shitshow at a Miami mall would be misrepresented as the beginning of an alien takeover ..." (my emphasis) — StonyBrook _babble 09:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelson M. Lopez

Nelson M. Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable chess player. The sources cited here either do not contain significant coverage (e.g., a brief mention in a New York Times article) or they are not reliable (e.g., ofchess.org). The only significant coverage I could find [2] is not enough to meet the GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Internet, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adil Raja

Adil Raja (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)

The first ref cites the subject’s Wikipedia page, the second and third are about his brief arrest and release. I couldn’t find any better sources so the subject seems not to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally disagree with this. Firstly, you deleted the previous info that was edited. Now you're saying that you're gonna delete this because the it's not notable? He is very popular. He has 1.3 Million followers on Twitter. He's a very trendy person but I don't get why you're doing all this. Please stop this and let people actually make some edits on this page. Thank you. TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are reason I believe you shouldn't delete this:

- Adil Raja is a famous journalist

- Adil Raja was the Spokesperson of the Pakistan Ex Servicemen Society

- Adil Raja is a famous whistle blower

- Adil Raja has almost half a million followers on Twitter

- He gets millions of views per month on his tweets

- Adil Raja's YouTube channel was the fastest growing journalist channel but for some reasons, they illegally banned it TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a lot of other information about him that's not included in this page. Maybe if you allow people to add that info, you won't say "seems not to be notable". TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TIRRIT3123: Thanks can you please show reliable independent sources discussing the subject in depth? Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can buy followers on Twitter, so that doesn't help notability, as you can views on Youtube. Spokesman for the Society is a PR job, which doesn't add to notability. If you can provide articles about his work as a journalist, not stuff he's written, we'd look at that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Seconding Mccapra's request for sources. Even for "famous-X" we need citations. I did a quick search in UK newspapers and did not find anything about him being detained (not arrested) in the UK. From the news articles in the wiki page this does not seem to be more than a single incident of not great import. Barring sources that would support his fame, it has to be delete per WP policy. I'll cycle back to see if anything changes. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I totally disagree. There are a ton of different articles on him. Please search "Adil Raja" on Google, then go to news. There are dozens of articles on him. Even by the most popular news companies in Pakistan. There is more relevant information which is missing but you didn't add. Especially about his illegal court martial. The official Pakistan Army Public Relations website released information about that but it's not added. So I think your opinion on him not being important is totally wrong. So, whoever nominated this page for deletion, please undo that. If you have any more questions or counter arguments, please share them. I'll make sure to reply Thank you. WarriorYt43 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are a ton of them, please show links here to the three best pieces of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here you go

www.dawn.com/news/amp/1792427

https://www.tribune.com.pk/story/2423051/fia-to-bring-back-adil-raja-other-miscreants-sitting-abroad%3famp=1

https://pakobserver.net/pakistan-armys-former-officers-adil-raja-haider-mehdi-convicted-over-espionage/

www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1091959-adil-raja-admits-to-defaming-serving-officer-in-uk-court 2601:282:1F32:681E:4485:E5DF:7AEA:C1DA (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails RS, disclaimer on page states, "Disclaimer: This information has been collected from Google. If you would like to add or remove any information from this page, please contact us"	1. Sumiya (5 May 2023). "Major Adil Raja Wikipedia, Age, Wife, Family, & Biography". Mag Pakistan. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	2. ^ "Adil Raja 'arrested' in London; Sabir, Moeed booked for sedition". The Express Tribune. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	3. ^ "Youtuber Major (r) Adil Raja released after detained by British police". Daily Pakistan Global. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.

Keep votes provided nothing to evaluate. If someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pakistan Army's Official Website's own press release: https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=6679

https://www.dawn.com/news/1792427 WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2421712/adil-raja-arrested-in-london-sabir-moeed-booked-on-sedition-charges

https://www.nation.com.pk/13-Nov-2023/civil-society-protest-outside-quetta-press-club-against-adil-raja

https://arynews.tv/ex-army-officers-convicted-over-espionage/

https://www.geo.tv/latest/520383-pak-army-sentences-2-retired-officers-for-inciting-sedition WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I listed half a dozen. These are from the most official news sources in Pakistan, including the Pakistan Army's own press release site. WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A whole lot of not much it seems, basically rehashing the same press release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do me a favor and search up Adil Raja on Google, and go to the news section. You'll see dozens of articles. Thank you WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TimothyBlue, your view of the proposed sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete non-notable youtuber [3], arrested for reporting. Most "evidence" seems to be faked, does not appear notable outside of having been arrested with a host of others. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Non-notable YouTuber?? His channel was one of the fastest growing channels amongst the journalist community in Pakistan. He gained 650K subscribers after half a year of starting his channel. Then it was obviously banned because of mass reports. Now YouTube doesn't even reply to tweets related to his issue. Why is that? Why are they trying to silence him? I really hope Wikipedia doesn't delete this and be an addition to this censorship WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, wikipedia non-notability, due to a lack of sources. I have no idea why YouTube is trying to silence him, perhaps ask them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Notability is not clearly established. Fails independent verifiability too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Currently, nothing notable regarding the individual except his conviction on espionage charges, and some other minor run-ins with law enforcement. Needs more coverage in the press to meet WP:GNG and even, WP:JOURNALIST. Article has potential to be recreated as I believe it is WP:TOOSOON. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verbal ASE

Verbal ASE (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 and WP:NBIO. Most of the articles sources are not reliable (see Genius and Sportskeeda) and/or closely connected to the subject. Also seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, with the sole event potentially violating the WP:BLP guidelines. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  fuck nah i dont want this to be deleted, fuck u talkin about???? 104.10.143.25 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: He has been the subject of many news, although this is short, it definitely helps sum up WP:SIGCOV with this which is in depth. I would absolutely lean towards weak keep after performing a full research. dxneo (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Refocus to being about the music video. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Refocus absolutely, this guy. MvA BoB (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Week keep, also the Verbal ASE#controversy section needs some cleanup. Jothefiredragon (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Redirect to Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom, as it's more concise.Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nah dawg, this isn't April Fool's bro. Qadri223 (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Redirect to either Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom or Synapson

  Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 11:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Hazbin Hotel#Fandom or Synapson, per Jo the fire dragon. It's worth mentioning that one of the sources cited at Hazbin Hotel mentions that the link between the subject of the article & the controversy are tentative, and then reports the source as "per KnowYourMeme" (see WP:KYM). Most sources on the article appear to be from 2015 to 2018, and a more recent source from 2022 mentions him in passing. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I agree. It fails notability, and the only reason it's here is becouse of the recent meme/controversy. Also, I disagree with the notion too redirect him to Hazbin Hotel. He isn't officially associated with the show, and he made videos of dozens of cartoons, so why should he be linked to this specific cartoon. And yeah, yeah, meme, 50k on video, bad taste, and so on. Nobody will remember that in a month. I don't think redirect is needed.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• WP:ATA#CRYSTAL

Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not everything needs a redirect to everything. If his article gets deleted, I don't see why we need to keep redirect becouse of a meme that's definitely not notable at all. Also, there's a difference between a "forgotten" celebrity, and a meme stoping being revelant after a week. And in this case I'm referring to the fact the meme won't be remembered, not the artist. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep it as draft. Although it may have violated WP:BLP and WP:Notability (people), we could turn it into a draft article, then, the Peer review may conclude whether the article should be an article or failed at the first place in the draft process. Qadri223 Talk to me like a true conservative my contributions to the Wikipedia 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are promo, interviews, name metions, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I don't think there is a good redirect target, but no strong objection if a consensus emerges for a target.  // Timothy :: talk  14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  TimothyBlue, please see the first comment for "in depth" coverage. dxneo (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply: [4] very interesting, but it is a video monologue from the subject. Fails WP:IS. I would like to keep this article, but I can't find sources and can't just vote keep because ILIKEIT.

[5] is very promotional for Hazbin Hotel.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: According to the article, Verbal ASE has held jobs, performed publicly, collaborated with other artists, been contracted for gigs, and runs a mid-tier YouTube channel. Your average successful artist, in other words. While making it in the art world is admirable, it is not notable. Verbal ASE deserves no article. Dieknon (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sugar Zaza

Sugar Zaza (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 fails WP:NWEB and GNG. Many of these citations fail WP:SPS. The Haaretz cite is a mere mention. The PhD dissertation talks little about the subject and are in the footnotes as much as in the body, which is weak. Everything else (ynet, tech.walla, mako, makorrishon) are interviews and so, aren't independent so there's not much for notability of this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. This article in Israel's most-sold newspaper counts toward notability. It's a SIGCOV and RS description of the comedians/content creators by two journalists, without interviewing anyone. gidonb (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gidonb: How? "The "Shugar Zaza" thing about Pokémon undoubtedly draws on the personal experience of Trager and Paz, who even managed to predict the madness that will take over the world more than six months in advance" I don't see SIGCOV there, regardless that the source is RS. And, a single article along with aformentioned dissertation still seems too low for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is based on analysis of their outputs, strengthening the SIGCOV. Also, did you notice that you are answering to a comment, not to a !vote? It makes your comment that this is just one source a bit premature, doesn't it? gidonb (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"did you notice that you are answering to a comment" Yes. "...a bit premature, doesn't it?" No. Sometimes I decide to let editors cast wrong !votes and say nothing. Other times when I see someone saying something like a given source is SIGCOV and I don't see it, I ask how. I examined each of the citations present and did a BEFORE search ahead of this nomination, so it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to question why other editors would interpret sources differently. Normal people ask questions and discuss. If you take offense at my questioning of your logic, maybe AfD isn't for you since argument is typical in these discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would I take offense? I found one valid source that counts toward notability. That's not enough for a keep yet maybe a beginning for the next person. Therefore it was a comment. You have every right to comment below my comment. So do I. gidonb (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Passes the GNG. The sources are the most-sold newspaper of Israel and Israel's newspaper of record. The characterization of the Haaretz source in the intro as a passing mention is a complete mischaracterization. That entire article is about the activities of this couple and how these were received (badly). There is much more coverage of this duo but these are two SIGCOV RS sources that satisfy the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's hardly significant coverage, it's barely half a page long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Oaktree. It's a common comment for Hebrew and Arabic sources. These are very concentrated languages. Texts in Hebrew and Arabic become significantly longer in Germanic and Romance langauges, including English. And vice versa. Half a page in Hebrew is SIGCOOV. gidonb (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: There's just not enough coverage to keep the article. The Ynet article is fine, it's barely half a page long. This [6] also isn't extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep: Haaretz, Ynet and Walla are leading media. The TV coverage was also made by some of the most watched channels. It is important to remember the proportions of Israeli media and entertainment industry. Sugar Zaza's videos have made very impressive viewing numbers (especially in comparison to the potential of Hebrew content). Their works are some of the most popular and notable viral hits in Israeli web. They also have one of the longest ongoing careers by Israeli independent content creators.

  However, the parts about their international success certainly do require additional sources. JamesB007 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes but the coverage in minimal. That's mroe the issue. Viral hits mean nothing unless we have extensive sourcing talk about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SapientX

SapientX (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)

Refbombed article about an AI startup, packed with references that don’t mention the subject at all, or mention it in passing, or are PR. There are a few refs that discuss the subject in detail so it might be possible to stubify and keep this, but it seems marginal so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and California. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep. Notability is marginal, and the article’s Promo style is annoying, but its Product Sage does seem to have gotten significant coverage as sourced here. Llajwa (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - There is enough coverage on this one such as Venturebeat, Santa Vruz Works, Investor Place, and bnext.com.Royal88888 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm a co-founder of SapientX. To date, we have 31 press articles and TV interviews, published 5 white papers, issued 14 press releases and we will be featured in Dominique Wu's soon to be released book on XR. I realize that most of the above is not highly valued by Wikipedia standards.

I would also like to share with you important historical milestones that are not well supported by press:

1. SapientX's conversational AI work began in 2003 under ARDA's NIMD research program. This work was done by parent company Planet 9 Studios and the IP was transferred to SapientX in 2016. Under this funding, we developed Sage, the first commercial conversational 3D character. (IBM Watson also began in the NIMD program.) This can all be documented with valid footnotes.

2. Bruce Wilcox joined our team in 2008 and developed an upgraded AI system later to be called ChatScript and released into open source. ChatScript is the first generative AI conversational system that I am aware of. The press falsely portrays ChatGPT as the first generative AI system. ChatScript was used in our RayGun navigation platform. Customers included BMW, Clarion, Intel, Nvidia and Magellan GPS.

3. In 2016, we developed Mitsubishi Mia, the first conversational 3D character for automotive use.

4. In 2021, we publicly demonstrated the first life-size conversation 3D character in a prototype for Lowe's.

5. In 2022, we delivered Chief, a life-size museum docent, to the Liberty Station retail complex in San Diego.

The point that I would like to make is that we have consistently been leaders in conversational AI and these achievements should be captured in Wikipedia. I can provide documentation of each fact asserted above. I acknowledge that these same facts are not fully supported in the commercial press. So I ask, are press citations more valuable than actual historical achievement? I will be happy to add these facts along with citations, to the SapientX article. DavidColleen (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi David, we require (a) in-depth (b) analysis/opinion/investigation/fact checking that are (3) clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the topic company. So on the basis that the TV interviews are essentially giving somebody from the company speaking, the white papers are published by the company, press releases are published by the company, and the book isn't published as of yet so we've no idea of the content, that leaves us with the 31 press articles. An analysis of those articles to date shows that they regurgitate the information provided by the company. They fail (a), (b) and (c) of the test above. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks HighKing. Yes, I already stated that I understood your evaluation of the present footnotes. I can introduce the above facts to the article supported by new source documents and references. I'm not versed in your rules. Shall I directly add the above facts? DavidColleen (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: While it's certainly noteworthy (in the colloquial sense) that someone is developing NLP applications using symbolic AI in the year 2024, I am not convinced it's notable in the Wikipedian sense. Most of the sourcing is passing mentions and I don't see a whole lot of significant in-depth coverage. jp×g🗯️ 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Of course symbolic AI has its place in 2024. Companies approaching unicorn status like Kore.AI and JustAnswer use the same underlying symbolic NLP (ChatScript). It's as effective as machine learning for intent detection. Earl Sacerdoti reviewed SapientX's NL technology for a fundraising site and said: "the symbolic-processing approach uses programs rather than statistics to interpret inputs. This makes the systems less robust than the statistically-based ones, but completely reliable. This is important for tasks like controlling automotive subsystems, where a language-based control system performing the incorrect task is distracting if not dangerous." And we all know the unreliabilities of LLM's. SapientX blends NLP approaches as appropriate for task. (Bruce Wilcox, SapientX). 90.214.57.60 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is my first Wikipedia post. I'm a co-founder of SapientX. While it's currently fashionable to use machine learning and more recently large language models for machine conversation, both fail to offer the accuracy and reliability needed for serious commercial applications. For instance, Open AI, in their recent white paper, claims only 78% conversational accuracy for GPT-4 asking the same question 5 times. The core of SapientX's conversation system is ChatScript (symbolic reasoning) which yields 99% accuracy in our internal testing. ChatScript was developed by my co-founder Bruce Wilcox. Unfortunately, there is no standard for testing or third party test results. BTW, we also offer a version of our software that combines ChatScript (for accuracy) and GPT-4 (for its ability to riff).

  JPxG suggests that press coverage is the measuring stick for noteworthiness. I disagree. I will relay to you that TomTom conducted testing of what they felt to be the three strongest conversational AI systems in the market; Cerence (formerly Nuance), SoundHound and SapientX. They reported to me that SapientX outperformed the others. Additionally, Gartner recently ranked Kore AI as the top conversational AI system. Kore uses ChatScript. Gartner did not include SapientX in the evaluation as we did not meet their revenue level. DavidColleen (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any non-trade publication sources and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the company beyond the Trump chatbot review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Does raising $2,155,753.95 by crowdfunding 2,798 people make it more notable? https://www.startengine.com/offering/SAPIENTX 90.214.57.60 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. As noted above by a co-founder, there are very little sources and this may be WP:TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks HighKing. Your comments help me to understand your evaluation criteria. Using press articles to validate facts works well for topics such as baseball, but for deeply technical topics, such as conversational AI, I don't know a single person in the press versed enough in the topic to write a solid article without the input of someone like myself or Bruce Wilcox. Instead, they write about what is fashionable, such as LLM's this week. There is even large institutional bias, that I have encountered, at the university level. One head of an AI department at a Finnish university to me that "if it's not machine learning, it's not AI". This of course is silly.

  Nonetheless, I believe that I can support most of the new facts, listed above, with multiple documents. Is it okay to proceed with this? DavidColleen (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]