User:Teratix/XfD log

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

 * Jo Lambert: nominated at AfD; notified 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage.
 * CITYpeek: nominated at AfD 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Passing mentions in local sources only.
 * Major Street-basketball Foundation: nominated at AfD 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for organisations. Close to G11-worthy. I'm stunned this article has managed to stick around in this state since 2006 and even gets a link in Index of Australia-related articles. Only bringing to AfD since it does get a paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald The only other sources I found were short pieces in local newspapers that fail WP:AUD. I'm happy to email full text to anyone who is interested, but they really weren't adequate.

May 2024

 * WeFinance: nominated at AfD; notified 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Just wanted a second or third pair of eyes on these sources   - I don't think any are suitably reliable or independent, but their coverage would be significant.
 * Stick Soldiers: nominated at AfD; notified 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the general notability guideline but I would appreciate a sanity check from someone more experienced in videogames.
 * Joseph Karr O'Connor: nominated at AfD 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for people. Should have been deleted at the previous AfD four years ago. As one of the article's own sources reveals, the article was written by O'Connor's colleagues and the AfD was influenced by off-wiki canvassing.
 * TalkLocal: nominated at AfD 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * 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, 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".
 * Waggle Foundation: nominated at AfD 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * 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.
 * MartianCraft: nominated at AfD 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Created by SPA. Maybe their app Briefs has some marginal notability (and that's a big maybe), but companies don't inherit notability from their products. Best source I could find
 * Moxie Software: nominated at AfD 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * 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:  ... "not great" would be an understatement.
 * Axel Downard-Wilke: nominated at AfD; notified 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * 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, 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 and . 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, 24I 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 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.
 * SeeVolution: nominated at AfD 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent or unreliable. Originally PRODed, but missed this previous AfD which unanimously favoured deletion.

June 2024

 * RuralShores: nominated at AfD 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Per WP:DEL 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.
 * Information Systems Associates FZE: nominated at AfD 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest.
 * Inphonex: nominated at AfD 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Apologies in advance for editors reviewing this AfD. In any other situation I would PROD this as obviously failing the notability guidelines for companies, but because this quickly-withdrawn AfD exists the article is now permanently ineligible for PROD.
 * Atala T: nominated at AfD 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists.
 * Hoopla Software: nominated at AfD 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guidelines for companies. PROD removed by IP editor claiming "I could find sources" without actually adding any sources.
 * Upwave: nominated at AfD 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).
 * Beachhead Solutions: nominated at AfD; notified 12:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. However, I found enough sources for PROD to perhaps not be warranted:*brief mention in WSJ*A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction.
 * LeadPoint: nominated at AfD 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. PROD removed back in 2009 by article creator. Sources are non-independent (e.g. press releases) or trivial (e.g. The Telegraph piece briefly mentions the company appears in a top-50 list). There's a lot in the FT Adviser but these seem to be thinly rehashed press releases (example), not independent analysis.
 * Delight Mobile: nominated at AfD 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.The other four are:****Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once.
 * Trumpia: nominated at AfD 14:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: No, not what you were thinking of. Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Only bringing it to AfD because there's a tiny bit of Forbes coverage that seems to have more than nonzero editorial oversight.
 * Wolf Frameworks: nominated at AfD; notified 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial or non-independent. Ineligible for PROD.
 * Square 9 Softworks: nominated at AfD 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: PRODed this one four years ago. Recreated by the company's marketing officer. Still fails the notability guidelines for companies.

July 2024

 * EGM Green: nominated at AfD 13:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Third time's a charm, I hope. This company has somehow survived two AfDs despite failing the notability guidelines for companies. The available sources are thinly-veiled press releases, not providing genuinely independent coverage.
 * EOdisha Summit: nominated at AfD; notified 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the general notability guideline. No independent sources to speak of. Also bundling::: may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion.
 * Vennli: nominated at AfD 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) * Reason: Fails the notability guideline for companies. Coverage in purely local sources or from alumni publications does not contribute to notability.