Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FatherShops

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. ✗plicit 11:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatherShops

[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)

Non-notable WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned nothing about them online, apart form the usual social media PR and the two (week-old) paid placement articles cited. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for Speedy Deletion under A7: The user already attempted to add this website as a source to another article, and the only sources online are paid ads. Pretty unambiguous example of trying to promote. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned in the nomination that I already nominated it for speedy deletion A7 on 24 November, but A7 was declined with the peculiar rationale of "decline A7 as there is a reference, PROD". Another editor also nominated it for A7 ten minutes later, but the rules about declined speedies mandate that we must clog up the AFD nominations with obvious speedy fodder like this. Wikishovel (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad call on @Ritchie333's part, in my opinion. The sources, which are paid for, are explicitly exempt from WP:CCOS. Currently, it meets the criteria for A7. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're clogging up AfD; that tends to get clogged up with debates that get relisted three times with two editors arguing back and fourth. I don't think replacing an A7 with a PROD is particularly bad; the real bad call here was KushagraBh (talk · contribs) removing the PROD tag for no reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid-for garbage. Nothing I can find in a search online that would come remotely close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no sources I could find to salvage this. (Regarding the A7 tag, see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I find [1], still in the same realm as the other newsorg cited. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NCORP. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an e-comm proposition, supported by announcement-based coverage of its recent expansion into India, which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the substantial coverage on FatherShops / FatherSolutions needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:41, 3 December 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.