Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xecced

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xecced

[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)

PR spam, no coverage, it's all funding and WP:MILL Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: baseless and wholly unfair... Simply reading the first reference would clearly prove otherwise... Nneka Francis (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? None of your sources are in depth coverage, they're all PR, announcements and funding information. Praxidicae (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been attacking my submissions with clearly baseless and inflammatory remarks... Wikipedia stipulates evidence based discourse at all times... Even the first reference is clearly an in-depth interview of the organisation (attached below): Nneka Francis (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteThis article has pretty clearly been WP:REFBOMBED. The sources themselves are mostly a combination of PR and funding, from sources that do not seem entirely reliable. The AfrikanHeroes one seems decent enough, but all the rest are either just repeating a company announcement, or are pretty clearly promotional, including the Ventureburn one. Of course, as subsaharan startups are not the most reported on of subjects, I could potentially be missing something. Also, the behaviour of User:Nneka Francis does lead me to suspect there may be a conflict of interest in relation to the creation of this article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn’t know better, I would say you were chummy with Praxidicae, whom appears to have a penchant for this... Daniel Mpala and VentureBurn are a bonafide tech journalist and newspaper, reporting “facts of the operations” of an “impact investor”... I’ve a bonafide track record of making high quality edits, e.g. received thanks for edit... However, WP:N says: “Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice". The criteria for the Guinness of Records is being first and only, which this evidently is, and thus by definition “notable, or "worthy of notice”... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic criteria (WP:N) means the article should not just be notable but also significant, e.g. this is precisely the sort of information cash-strapped Africans - a 1/4 of the world’s population - would actively search for given the low availability of venture capital (read Africa section) in Africa, and the rapidly growing impact of AI, e.g. automation rapidly replacing human workers... Nneka Francis (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Splinemath (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s evidently received significant coverage by reliable, independent, Africa-tech focused sources, as it’s the continent’s first and only AI VC fund, i.e. western media seldom cover such Africa news... It saddens me that Wikipedia now appears to reflect global inequalities, i.e. a lot of the entries seem unencyclopedic, but subjectively significant to westerners... “If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.” - WP:IAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails GNG and NCORP. Most of the coverage is PR churnalism and the other coverage isn't enough to put it over the notability threshold. Could be a case of too WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, there is no indication that the significance of being the first AI VC fund or any area-specific fund, for that matter, on any continent or region (or even just being the first AI VC fund in general) is enough to meet notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AI now shapes virtually all aspects of our lives, e.g. Wikipedia bots to Netflix recommendations and the machines that assemble our cars. The fact this is the only fund covering a 1/4 of human civilisation should in of itself warrant an exception WP:IAR, even before what has now become a subjective debate on whether non-western sources have no cachet... I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, e.g. the fact those advocating for deletion appear to be Caucasian American should give us pause for thought... Nneka Francis (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Promotional article whose sources are either press releases or articles about fundraising. Neither establish notability. Article creator is strictly promoting this company (spam added to List of venture capital firms has been reverted) and resorting to personal attacks (i.e., blind accusations of racism in response to GPL93) on anyone who disagrees with her is certainly not advised. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69, wow, I merely pointed out an observational fact... If it isn't true, disprove it. After all, this is meant to be a civilized forum of debate, and Wikipedia's goal is to be egalitarian... Furthermore, I added it to the list of List of venture capital firms after a comment asked me to de-orphan articles, and I'll go further to say that this entry is more notable and significant than many on the list, e.g. please compare with Sevin Rosen Funds on the same list... Any source on an impact investor will invariably be about it's investing, which appears to rankle some here...Nneka Francis (talk • contribs
Suspected suckpuppeting or collusion: I'm getting the same comment, slightly different wording, at nearly the same time, giving the impression of suckpuppeting or collusion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because people are commenting with the same policy doesn't mean they are sock puppets. At some point you have to ask if everyone else sees something and you don't are you the one in the wrong. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk)19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered that why we are saying the same thing is because we see the same issues with the article? It appears that the only editor in this discussion to fail Wikipedia's "egalitarian ideals" has been you. GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sockpuppet now? Please grow up and stop ranting to every comment that disagrees with you, as it's doing nothing but clogging up the discussion while your continued incivility will result in you being blocked. Much appreciated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP additionally most of the sources appear to be press releases or other cruft unsuitable to meet our sourcing requirements. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk)19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. We can't build a neutral article on pure churnalism and marketing hype. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any strong reliable sources, just press releases and similar links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional PR article. From other observations This user may not be here to build an encyclopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: This user opened their account barely two weeks ago and wasted no time in creating an article about Muhtari Adanan, which was recently deleted due to lack of notability, and editors were badgered over there as well. Adanan's name is also prominently featured in this article, so it's clear Nneka Francis is a promotional account for this individual. For that, in addition to their ongoing uncivil behavior, in my opinion a permanent block is warranted. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 Hypothetically speaking if she’s a single purpose promo account then it wouldn’t be a stretch to say they may have received a financial reward, at least a part payment for the creation of the deleted article & this soon to be deleted one. You can only imagine their dilemma/trauma/panic right now. Yep! an indef block is best.Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: @Celestina007: Although I agree that it is likely a COI/UPE editor I think that the current block is the right call for now in the off chance Nneka Francis is just an over-zealous editor who's passion for a subject got in the way of his/her better judgement. This article will in all likelihood be deleted before the current block ends and how Nneka Francis edits once the block is lifted will either confirm his/her intentions either way. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: Yeah, I discussed this with User:Bishonen recently and she concluded that the three-day block was fitting in lieu of an immediate permanent one, which makes sense. The article will soon be gone anyway while the paid-SPA editor will be on a very short leash when s/he returns. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 & GPL93 forgive the digression, I see a he/she used to address the article creator which is a bright idea when unsure of the gender, I’m no expert but “Nneka francis” per editor first name “Nneka” is a Nigerian name usually used by the igbo people of Nigeria for a female. So yeah it’s okay for you both to refer to article creator as a “she” & yes her overzealous nature without understanding core policies is quite annoying.Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete the article and the spam editor. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Lots of sourcing, but looks like classic overcite.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (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.