Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATDD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SATDD

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Complete lack of notability, created by editor who invented this and seems to be only interested in self-promotion. Best source for this is Linkedin[1], most of the few other hits for this are unrelated. Article doesn't technically meet any of the speedy criteria, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's an essay on test-driven development, by a self-promoting WP:SPA. Wikishovel (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems well-sourced, what are some of the issues with the items used as reference? Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we're looking at the same article: SATDD is completely unsourced since creation. The version created yesterday by same editor was sourced only by a post from creator's LinkedIn (and largely copied from it). That LinkedIn post seems to have been taken down now. Wikishovel (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Beg pardon. There are no sources in this iteration. Previous iterations were sourced to creator's LinkedIn and their blog.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel: Yeah, I called them on sourcing to LinkedIn on the penultimate iteration.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Failed to ping. Ping!-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete based on the lack of sourcing; to be honest, I'm still not sure what "thing" this talks about so I'm not able to properly pull up sources. This could be a redirect to another subject, ok with that option. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet inclusion requirements, despite creators valiant efforts to promote the thing. The article is some sort of essay. The article is webhosty, but let's let it ride. The creator has added a source that looks like a mirror of the article on Wikipedia. (No a copyvio. Wikipedia is the source for the source.) It would be best for others to review the added source on their own. (Late to the party cause I thought I had speedy deleted an iteration of this and did not want to take a second bite at the apple. It was the auto bio and multi redirects to the auto bio I had deleted.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting this was WP:G11'd by @Jimfbleak:.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.