Wikipedia

User:Teratix/XfD log

< User:Teratix

This is a log of all deletion discussion nominations made by this user using Twinkle's XfD module.

If you no longer wish to keep this log, you can turn it off using the preferences panel, and nominate this page for speedy deletion under CSD U1.

April 2024 edit

  1. Jo Lambert: nominated at AfD; notified FloridaArmy (talk · contribs) 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. CITYpeek: nominated at AfD 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Major Street-basketball Foundation: nominated at AfD 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 edit

  1. WeFinance: nominated at AfD; notified Fintechsf (talk · contribs) 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Just wanted a second or third pair of eyes on these sources [1] [2] [3] - I don't think any are suitably reliable or independent, but their coverage would be significant.
  2. Stick Soldiers: nominated at AfD; notified Raler (talk · contribs) 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Joseph Karr O'Connor: nominated at AfD 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. TalkLocal: nominated at AfD 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [4] [5], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call".
  5. Waggle Foundation: nominated at AfD 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Fails the notability guideline for organisations. PROD contested, citing four sources which, upon investigation, all turned out to contribute nothing to notability:
      :Parade, CMT and People are puffy tabloid pieces based on a press release (People is the most honest/shameless about this: "It was such an unexpected major expense at an already tough time," Lambert, 36, said in a press release.) They don't even cover Waggle beyond the barest of passing mentions; they're about a separate fund Miranda Lambert set up in partnership.
      :The Day a local Connecticut newspaper writing about a local business, exactly the sort of coverage WP:AUD excludes from notability considerations.
      These sources are so flimsy I am honestly a bit ticked off that the PROD was contested.
  6. MartianCraft: nominated at AfD 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Moxie Software: nominated at AfD 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [6] [7] [8]... "not great" would be an understatement.
  8. Axel Downard-Wilke: nominated at AfD; notified Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: After careful analysis of the seemingly extensive sources, my judgement is Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people. The article cites 51 sources, so please bear with me – a full explanation will necessarily take some time.
      Some important context: Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (talk · contribs), who sits on Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand's management committee and is a Wikipedia administrator. The main contributors to the article have been the New Zealand Wikipedians Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) and Marshelec (talk · contribs). Given Marshelec apparently sits on the same Wikimedia NZ management committee as Schwede66, there appears to be some problematic conflict-of-interest editing going on here. I am in the process of opening a COIN thread which I will link when finished.
      Now let's get onto the sources. I uncontroversially rule out the following sources for independence concerns. By uncontroversial, I mean something like "Downard-Wilke wrote the source", "The source is Downard-Wilke's company", or "Downard-Wilke was on this organisation's committee at the time":
      *1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 51.
      This knocks out 21 of the 51 sources. To put it another way, about 40% of this article’s sources are obviously and uncontroversially not independent.
      I uncontroversially rule out the following sources as not mentioning Downward-Wilke at all:
      *16, 20, 23, 24
      I also uncontroversially rule out source 7 (raw election results, obviously not significant) and 45 (Wikipedia discussion, user-generated). That is all the sources I believe can be uncontroversially eliminated.
      I rule out the following sources as cases where Downard-Wilke merely acts as a spokesperson providing brief comment and receives no significant coverage himself:
      *9, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50 plus 10, 32, 41 (on ProQuest, ask me for the full text)
      I rule out sources 35 and 36 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) and sources 46 and 47 for the same reason, but I wanted to note these separately because they give slightly more extensive coverage.
      I rule out source 2 as a "man-on-the-street" type of interview, where Downard-Wilke is interviewed by a German paper because he is someone with a German background who experienced the Christchurch earthquake. This sort of coverage does not indicate the interviewee is significant.
      I rule out source 3 as the type of interview that is considered non-independent (see the essay Wikipedia:Interviews). There is not enough independent content beyond Downard-Wilke’s answers to the questions.
      I could only partially verify source 6, finding a NZ Library record. However, given the context of the source (a local paper covering Downard-Wilke running for a regional council election where even winning candidates don’t have articles unless they have some sort of national political career), it’s unlikely it contributes to notability.
      I rule out source 12 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) as covering a case where Downard-Wilke received an award from an organisation while he was on their executive committee. Not sufficiently independent.
      I rule out Boulter 2020 (cites 13 and 21) because the document notes itself to be a draft copy. I have other concerns, but drafts are at the very least unreliable.
      I was unable to verify source 25, which provides extremely little bibliographical information. However, judging by the type and brevity of the information it is cited as supporting (the fact Downard-Wilke won a local German bike race), we have good reason to think this is not the sort of source that would deliver significant coverage.
      Source 43, a Stuff article, initially looked promising to me, but judging by the link at the bottom, it appears to have been written to promote this edit-a-thon which was explicitly geared towards improving coverage on Stuff. Downard-Wilke seems to have played some part in organising the meet-up. Not sufficiently independent.
      I could not find any promising sources that weren't already in the article, so I conclude the article fails NBIO. I appreciate you reading this through to the end and I hope you can appreciate it is difficult to strike a balance between comprehensive discussion and brevity when you are dealing with 51 sources.
  9. SeeVolution: nominated at AfD 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 edit

  1. RuralShores: nominated at AfD 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Teratix/XfD_log&oldid=1227074533"