User talk:Kardyewest

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Piggyspanx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggyspanx until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ACROM12 [TALK] 05:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I am the creator of the PiggySpanx article and acknowledge the COI as the subject. For accuracy, the article did not reference any of my own social media posts or self-published content. The sources I used were the Cardlines article, coverage by hobby attorney Paul Lesko (who reported on multiple legal topics including my situation), and publicly filed legal documents related to my ongoing NIL-rights legal dispute with Perfect Game and the cease-and-desist I received.

I understand that while these materials accurately reflect the events, they may not meet Wikipedia’s requirements for notability and independent secondary sourcing under WP:GNG and WP:BLP. I am not contesting deletion; I only want the sourcing and context represented accurately in the discussion. Kardyewest (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kardyewest, After going back through the sources, the article still doesn’t have any actual independent secondary coverage. What’s currently cited are:

• a first-person blog post you wrote yourself on OnMantel

• your own website

• two Twitter links

• and court filings, which are primary sources

The Cardlines article you mentioned isn’t cited anywhere, so in its present form the page doesn’t have any independent analysis or reporting that would establish notability.

Even taking your explanation into account, the sourcing issues don’t change under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. A couple of points:

• Tweets (even from Paul Lesko) are still primary and don’t meet the depth needed for WP:GNG

• Court documents can confirm a case exists but can’t be used to show notability (WP:SIGCOV / WP:BLPPRIMARY)

• The rest of the content comes from self-published or self-referential material

So regardless of intent, the article just doesn’t have the independent, in-depth sourcing needed for a standalone biography. I appreciate that you acknowledged the COI and aren’t opposing deletion, but the original concerns—lack of significant coverage, reliance on primary/self-published sources, and BLP sourcing issues—are still what this AfD is based on. ACROM12 [TALK] 09:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)