User:Unforgettableid/PROD log

This is a log of selected proposed deletion tags applied or endorsed by this user using Twinkle's PROD 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.

Taken to AfD

1. Green Hills Software: PROD; notified Jantangring (talk · contribs) 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article cites trade publications, but not any mainstream sources. ISTM that consensus is probably that mainstream sources are needed. Please see the words of AJHingston, Nwlaw63, Cunard, Whpq and Sandstein at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Croatia. See also the unofficial essay WP:42 and what it says about mainstream publications. See also WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough.
2. PKWARE, Inc.: PROD; notified Argruber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: PKWARE is the creator of the PKZIP compression software. PKZIP may be notable, but PKWARE fails to meet our strict inclusion criteria.

Our PKWARE article was created in early 2010 by User:Argruber, a COI single-purpose account probably belonging to a paid editor. It contained atrocious copy such as this: "PKWARE provides data-centric security solutions [...] and is known for its data compression and file management solutions." For one full year, nobody dared remove the "new unreviewed article" tag. I don't know why User:Banej removed the tag a year later; maybe s/he forgot to check for COIs.

Just because PKZIP is notable doesn't mean that PKWARE should be considered notable. WP:PRODUCT says: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."

The company has been around for a good long time: for about three decades. Still, it's quite small. It only has about 100 employees. And, more importantly, I looked through the first three pages of Google News results. I saw some local/special-interest coverage (which doesn't count towards notability), and at least a couple of press releases, but nothing which convinced me that the company meets our inclusion criteria.

Years of experience have shown that, even if you clean up an article about a non-notable company, it often attracts new paid editors after the clean-up. Paid editors are persistent, and often can win any edit war. It's better to instead delete all articles about non-notable companies.

Please delete.

Never mind; not spammy enough to be worth pursuing further

1. Rudaw Media Network: PROD; notified Kushared (talk · contribs) 05:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: CSD A7: This is an article about an organization, but the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Before contesting this deletion, please cite multiple independent sources which include significant coverage discussing the organization. Do not cite http://www.rudaw.net/ please. See also WP:42.

Redirected

1. Los Angeles International Wine Competition: PROD 01:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Spam.
2. Los Angeles International Extra Virgin Olive Oil Competition: PROD 01:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article is spam.
3. Live and Loud Tour: PROD; notified Rquidone0717 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article may fail WP:NCONCERT. Dear article creator: Please do not dispute this deletion unless you first add links to several articles in major mainstream sources which discuss the tour itself in detail. The New York Times or Rolling Stone would do. More-minor sources may or may not do; ask at WP:N/N. Please see also the unofficial policy summary WP:42.

Fixed

1. StartX: PROD; notified Michael.tung (talk · contribs) 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article doesn't seem to cite any mainstream published sources, and so may not meet our inclusion criteria. Please see WP:42. Please do not contest this deletion unless you have found and cited some mainstream published sources. I doubt that TechCrunch qualifies as "mainstream".
2. Golf in Thailand: PROD; notified Borndistinction (talk · contribs) 04:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. (Interesting side note about the equivalent Wikivoyage page, voy:Golf in Thailand: The community voted not to keep the page. They condensed it into a few paragraphs and merged it into another article.)
   • Fixed. User:Stalwart111 explains that, unlike Spa in Thailand, golf in Thailand actually is a notable topic.

TV shows are generally notable

1. Brunch (New Zealand): PROD 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Likely fails WP:GNG. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a summary of our GNG.) Also likely fails WP:NPOV, and I have doubts that anyone will ever bother to fix it.

April 2013

1. International Wine Contest: PROD 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article reads like an advertisement. It fails our WP:NPOV policy. Dear article creator: Please read WP:PSCOI.
2. Monde Selection: PROD 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article has been around since 2010, yet reads like an advertisement even today in 2013. It fails our WP:NPOV policy, and nobody cares enough about the subject to fix it. Dear article creator: Please read WP:PSCOI.
3. Decanter (magazine): PROD 19:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article makes no assertion that the subject meets the GNG. Also, the article repeatedly attracts COI editing; I have removed it, but it will be back if the article is not deleted.
4. Varsity Fanclub: PROD 04:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fails WP:42. (Incidentally, also fails WP:SOAPBOX.)
5. Thomas Fiss: PROD 04:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fails WP:42. (Interesting side note: This article seems to keep on attracting COI edits. If it's deleted, I suspect the problem may cease.)
6. Michael Isaacson: PROD 22:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Unsourced BLP which reads like an advertisement. Because the BLP is unsourced, it by definition fails WP:42. Because it fails WP:42, it should be deleted.

May 2013

1. Chris Jay: PROD 21:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article fails WP:NPOV and probably also WP:42.
2. Army of Freshmen: PROD 22:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: This mediocre article fails WP:NPOV and perhaps also WP:42.
3. Michael Isaacson: PROD 22:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article fails WP:NPOV. Also, article cites so few sources that it automatically fails WP:42.
4. Tuff TV: PROD 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article makes no assertion that Tuff TV passes WP:42.
5. Charles G. Smith: PROD 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: This puffery-laced article likely fails WP:42.
6. Mesirow Financial: PROD 04:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But this article does not cite any reliable sources.

June 2013

1. Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions: PROD 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article's lead cites 4 refs. I've clicked all 4 links; I now suspect Pegasus fails our general notability guideline. (You can see a summary of the guideline here.)

July 2013

1. List of banks based in Utah: PROD 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. April Ieremia: PROD 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Has failed WP:NPOV since at least last November[1] and nobody has bothered to fix it. That's a long time. Therefore, delete for now. If anyone wants to fix it later, they can request it be undeleted into the WP:Article incubator.
3. CHS Capital: PROD 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability tagged for over a year, and nobody's bothered to fix it. Perhaps the company fails our inclusion criteria. Dear non-Wikipedians: please see WP:42 for a summary of those criteria. (Note also that the article also reads like an advertisement, and probably has read so for years.)
4. ClarkMorgan: PROD 21:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Delete for now. Page has been notability tagged since May; nobody has bothered to fix it. If someone finds some references which can let the page meet WP:GNG (dear non-Wikipedians: please see WP:42 for a summary), then they can go to WP:Article incubator, show them the new references, and request that the page be undeleted into the incubator.

August 2013

1. Swinburne Student Union: PROD 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: I'm not convinced that this student union has received significant coverage in independent sources which meet our RS guideline. (Dear non-Wikipedians: WP:42 includes a summary of the guideline. It seems from that summary that student newspapers don't qualify.)
2. MetaCarta: PROD 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: This mediocre article does not manage to (and probably never has managed to) cite two independent sources which meet WP:RS. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a good short summary of WP:RS.)
3. SOTI Inc.: PROD 03:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article doesn't seem to cite enough sources which meet our RS guidelines. If you later find sources, please contact the deleting administrator on his/her talk page, link to the sources, and ask if they are sufficient. InformationWeek is a weak source for this purpose: see WP:B2B for an explanation. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a summary of our guidelines which show which sources are sufficient, and which are insufficient, to prove compliance with our inclusion guidelines.)
4. Justin Duerr: PROD 01:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Delete for now, unless someone adds several published sources (see WP:42) which each include at least a lengthy paragraph about Duerr. If someone finds such sources later, they can contact the deleting admin and ask if they suffice.

ISTM that this article's current sources probably fail Wikipedia's significant-coverage and verifiability requirements. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see our summary of these requirements.) Unless we find such sources as I have suggested, delete.

1. Safelite: PROD 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article includes no criticism. The last portion reads like a press release. Please allow deletion per G11. (Editors: Before recreating, contact me. You'll need to cite sources which meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Local coverage in the Columbus Dispatch may not qualify.)
2. D'Ieteren: PROD 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: This somewhat-spammy article fails to show that the subject meets our inclusion criteria. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see the unofficial summary of our criteria.)
3. Michael Vatikiotis: PROD 02:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Please read this one-sided article carefully. You may come to realize that it's probably an autobiography.

September 2013

1. Scopely: PROD 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Five Google news archive hits. If you can find significant coverage in multiple mainstream publications like The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek, then please contest this deletion. Otherwise, let's allow this spammy article to quietly disappear into the night. Dear article creator: Please see WP:42.
2. ExploreAnywhere: PROD 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Just two pages of Google news archive hits, including press releases. I found nothing really impressive. I did find one PC Magazine article which would be an acceptable source for an article about the company's "NetObserve" product, but doesn't speak about the company itself. If you can find significant coverage of the company in multiple mainstream publications like The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek, then please contest this deletion. Otherwise, let's allow this spammy article to quietly disappear into the night. Dear article creator: Please see WP:42.
3. Pneuron: PROD 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Only three Google News Archive hits. I want to see multiple articles in major mainstream media, not just articles in trade publications. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Please show me at least a couple of additional impressive sources: perhaps significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But I doubt that any such sources exist.
4. Social discovery platform: PROD 00:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Please delete. If sources are found later, please contact the deleting admin and ask if they suffice. Why delete? Well, WP:NEO says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (Please see also WP:42.) I looked on Google News but I don't think I found two such sources. If you find two such sources, please link to them in a "Further reading" section, then contact me and ask if they suffice.

November 2013

1. Findlay First Edition Show Choir: PROD; notified Violinlan42 (talk · contribs) 05:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: I suspect this article fails our strict Verifiability criteria. A mere six Google News Archive hits. All are Ohio news outlets: mere local coverage. I suspect that none contain significant coverage. And, in general, the types of outlets which are likely to write about Findlay First Edition are low-circulation outlets which may not pass WP:RS. (I thank Yunshui for providing inspiration which helped me to write this PROD rationale.)

December 2013

1. Square One Organic Vodka: PROD; notified Dehory (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article has failed WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION for years, and nobody has fixed it. Maybe nobody is interested in fixing it. And if so, then the article should be deleted. Please do not remove this tag unless you fix the article first.

January 2014

1. BioScale Inc.: PROD; notified Mr RD (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: This low-quality article is a POV press release originally written by known spammer[2] Mr RD. The cited Boston Globe article is a stub and fails SIGCOV. Citing the low-circulation Boston Business Journal is probably not helpful: see WP:AUD. The cited Harvard Business Review article might pass WP:AUD, but I think we still need more WP:42-compliant sources. I suspect we probably need two or three such sources, and this page makes me suspect they don't exist. If you find such sources, please point us to them on the talk page before contesting this deletion.

February 2014

1. Indianola Records: PROD; notified IcyFlamez (talk · contribs) 23:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: Article provides no evidence that there is any SIGCOV of the subject in RSes. (See also WP:42.) Please delete. Also, per WP:IAR, please do not undelete upon request: unless the requester points you to two acceptable sources, please incubate or userfy instead.
2. MICE industry in Thailand: PROD; notified Yarikata (talk · contribs) 00:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: A series of differently-named articles about the MICE industry in Thailand seem to have been repeatedly being created and deleted lately. I assume that someone has been paying an editor for each wave. This single article represents the third wave of article creation. Community consensus seems to be that the articles tend to fail WP:NOT and/or WP:NOTPROMOTION. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khon Kaen MICE Tourism. Please allow the below article to be deleted per WP:NOTPROMOTION.

March 2014

1. Diving in Thailand: PROD; notified Borndistinction (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: Like Spa in Thailand, this promotional article probably fails WP:NOT.

August 2014

1. Peiker Acustic: PROD; notified Fabianseitenblick (talk · contribs) 01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: This article, which was written by a SPA, fails to show us that there is any SIGCOV of the subject in two RSes. (See also WP:42.) In fact, with the exception of one source, the article is completely WP:SELFSOURCEd to Peiker's own websites.

December 2014

1. Secunia: PROD; notified Nikai (talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
   • Reason: Secunia only has about 100 employees. Most companies so small don't have enough published about them to pass WP:CORP. Maybe some of Secunia's products are notable; but the Secunia article itself should probably be deleted.

February 2015

1. Ziba Design: PROD; notified Gsalmy (talk · contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
   • Reason: This promotional article was created by a paid[3] editor. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Please delete. Note: Before removing this tag, please add links to independent, reliable sources which include significant coverage of Ziba.

May 2015

1. Navut (startup): PROD; notified Lizlee83 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
   • Reason: This "article" is actually a press release, presumably written by a paid editor. The use of Wikipedia for advertising purposes is forbidden. Please delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

February 2017

1. Pet Lovers Centre: PROD; notified Morning277 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
   • Reason: This "article" is actually more like a press release. It was originally created by infamous banned paid editor Morning277. It appears to be a boring, fanboyish article about a ho-hum chain of ordinary pet shops. (Perhaps the best articles about companies are balanced, and include both positive and negative information; see, for example, PetSmart#Allegations by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) Using Wikipedia for advertising purposes is forbidden. Please delete per CSD G11 and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

December 2018

1. Essentiale: PROD; notified Manfreddeous (talk · contribs) 10:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
   • Reason: Reason: This article, which was created by a user with an editcount of just five, fails to show us that there is any SIGCOV of the subject in two mainstream RSes. (Objectors: please see WP:42.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion for whatever natural "health" products you happen to want to sell to the public. Please delete.

January 2020

1. Steve Kuhn (executive): PROD; notified Ombase (talk · contribs) 02:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This "article" is perhaps more like a press release trumpeting the achievements of the subject. The article was written[4] by indefinitely-blocked[5] sockpuppet User:Ombase — perhaps yet another undisclosed-paid-editor account. The use of Wikipedia for PR purposes is forbidden. Please delete this article per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, and please salt so as to prevent recreation for a fourth time.
2. Mutual Mobile: PROD; notified 202.65.148.130 (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: this "article" is perhaps more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. The article was created by an IP user which has since been blocked;[6] perhaps the creator was yet another undisclosed paid editor. The use of Wikipedia for advertising purposes is forbidden. Please delete this article per WP:NCORP and/or WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

June 2020

1. Bedat & Co: PROD; notified BabyJinxi3 (talk · contribs) 09:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This "article" is perhaps more like a press release than a true encyclopedia article. Looking at the article's history, it appears to have been written by an editor who was almost surely paid. The use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes is forbidden. Please delete this page per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Thank you for your time!
2. Angie Hicks: PROD; notified Wikidelrey (talk · contribs) 14:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: This "article" is perhaps more like a press release than a true encyclopedia article. It was written by a paid editor; its talk page even admits to the fact. The "article" is also sorely lacking in balance. The use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes is forbidden. I skimmed the references list, clicked a few, did a Google search, and am not convinced that Ms. Hicks meets our strict GNG criteria, either. Please delete this page; please see the GNG as well as WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

July 2020

1. Kathleen McLaughlin: PROD 11:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Page created by now-blocked user A112484011388. Please see WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

August 2020

1. Kristopher B. Jones: PROD; notified Estimator Unilateral Made (talk · contribs) 12:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Non-notable puff piece. Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN and probably WP:GNG.
2. World Travel Awards: PROD; notified Estimator Unilateral Made (talk · contribs) 12:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Likely-paid puff piece about a probable vanity award ceremony.
3. Saleh Al Abdooli: PROD; notified AjideenK (talk · contribs) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Page created by a single-purpose account: perhaps an undisclosed paid editor. Please delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN and/or WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, or at least draftify. Thank you for reading this!
4. Gwamba: PROD 13:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: I suspect that this article is the result of undisclosed paid editing. I'm not convinced of the subject's notability.
5. Ollimania: PROD; notified Joostwijnberg (talk · contribs) 04:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: "Ollimania embraces their great privilege to tell stories by creating books, films and animations that bring people together, kindle imaginations and inspire people to dream." ... "The Ollimania Books bursting with visuals, good hearted humor, adventure and catchy visuals." ... "Ollimania stories continue to be in the hearts of children, young adults and older adults."

Article is somewhat promotional, and perhaps even a WP:G11 candidate. Please delete. Thank you!

1. Idols to Die: PROD; notified Sabinabraham (talk · contribs) 04:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Completely-unsourced article about a book published by a publisher which I'd never heard of. Article gets just 9 pageviews per month. I think article may be the result of undisclosed paid editing. I suspect that the book fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Please delete. Thank you!