User:Maddy from Celeste/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.

May 2022

1. Flexlink: nominated at AfD 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Subject is non-notable, article largely written by paid editors. WP:BEFORE reveals a single relevant source: a two-page discussion in an obscure textbook.

August 2022

1. Jim Krohn: nominated at AfD; notified NFLfan101 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Subject is not notable. WP:BEFORE only turns up trivial mentions in the context of sports, and basically nothing for business.

October 2022

1. SalvageData: nominated at AfD; notified Datarecov (talk · contribs) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources present are trivial mentions, a press release, dubious listicles, and so on. The creator of the article appears to be UPE as well.
2. CWCville: nominated at RfD; Target: Ruckersville, Virginia (notified); notified The Casual Scholar (talk · contribs) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Dubious name not discussed at target.

November 2022

1. Apollon Zimmermann: nominated at RfD; Target: ru:Циммерман, Аполлон Эрнестович; notified MicroSupporter (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Soft redirect to Russian Wikipedia. According to WP:SRD, Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers.
2. Chiriseri test: nominated at AfD; notified Nenerue (talk · contribs) 19:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Topic appears non-notable. Article as it is only cites primary sources, and I found nothing more in WP:BEFORE.
3. One Step GPS: nominated at AfD; notified Vegansolo (talk · contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: The subject is non-notable as it does not have significant, non-routine coverage in independent, reliable sources.
4. Per aspera ad astra: nominated at AfD; notified TheLoneRanger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: Just a translation and list of nonnotable uses of the phrase. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor TVTropes.
5. Big ball of mud: nominated at AfD; notified 24.3.239.64 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
   • Reason: While plenty of sources use this term, there doesn't appear to be much to be said about it; it doesn't really pass WP:DICDEF as an encyclopedic subject.

May 2023

1. Repetitive designation: nominated at RfD; Target: Chekhov's gun (notified); notified Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Not mentioned at target, unclear relevance.

June 2023

1. Strich: nominated at RfD; Target: Saxophone (notified); notified Rothorpe (talk · contribs) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Not explained at target. Maybe intended as a misspelling of Stritch, which is explained there, but that hardly seems helpful.

July 2023

1. Fosna: nominated at RfD; Target: Fosna–Hensbacka culture (notified) 12:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fosna is a former name of Kristiansund. I think this should be retargeted there, since that's what the word actually means.

December 2023

1. Lady Ballers: nominated at AfD; notified JJPII (talk · contribs) 13:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fails WP:GNG. The sources available on this consist of a few anti-trans outlets rallying for the movie's message, and a few pro-trans outlets rallying against it. In all this, there is remarkably little coverage of the film itself, which has received no professional reviews – not that surprising given that it's self-distributed. In addition to the sources already in the article, none of which are WP:GENREL, I found the following:
     *The Washington Times, mostly a quote-farm of people involved in the production, with only a few sentences about the film itself, questionable source.
     *LGBTQ Nation, only a few sentences providing secondary coverage of the film, not significant coverage.
     *PinkNews, not significant coverage about the film, but a pretty good summary of my argument here: {[tq|Aside from the rabid excitement from transphobic commentators, the response to the Lady Ballers trailer so far has been rather underwhelming}}.
     *Out, this stays maybe the most focused on the subject, but is still not significant coverage and is only based on the trailer; nobody seems to have reviewed the actual film.
2. 1oT: nominated at AfD; notified Techmart123 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Fails WP:NCORP. Present sources are mostly press releases and/or unreliable websites. The only one that appears reliable is Postimees, which may or may not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, but is in any case not enough on its own. WP:BEFORE did not locate sources that would ameliorate this. Pinging User:Kvng as remover of PROD.