Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FabFitFun (2nd nomination)

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. Star Mississippi 19:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FabFitFun

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Renominating this for Deletion since two previous participants have been blocked as socks and it is still the same position that none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Pinging previous participants Ari T. Benchaim, Falcon Kirtaran, SWinxy, 4meter4. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the same rationale as before, that the coverage is all routine and mostly not in reliable sources. I will point out that the few sources that are acceptable point to run of the mill scandals (like the data breach) that I would be on the fence about having an article about, but the article is instead highly positive, spins the scandals, and suggests possible COI. That the previous AfD was tampered with is frustrating, especially combined with that, and I am glad the socks were uncovered. Thanks for renominating! FalconK (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a very large and well written/structured source table analysis in the talk page Talk:FabFitFun written by @Valereee: that is worth examining. Assuming its not been updated to much. Well, its not to have been updated since the table was written. Good work Valereee. scope_creep^Talk
- I second that. What a detailed and thorough source analysis, @Valereee:. FalconK (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only socking in an AfD but likely UPE creation of this article by the sock. Jeez. Thanks for the kind comments about the source assessment table, HighKing improved greatly on my original work! Valereee (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis table results leaves no room for doubt. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the source analysis table on the article's talk page from the previous AfD. The article fails WP:GNG, as all of the references are in some way problematic or fail to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2022 (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.