Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugz & Cuddlez

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 23:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugz & Cuddlez[edit]

[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)

Article creator is a now blocked sockpuppet of the company founder, who created the article in violation of WP:COI. Article sources clearly do not meet WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 20:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Eligible, surely, for CSD G12? Fails WP:NCORP, is WP:ADMASQ, and is UPE Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Good point. You can change your !vote to "speedy delete" if you think that's appropriate. ––FormalDude talk 22:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude I think it needs to go through the AfD process now it is here. That does not prevent any editor in good standing from a CSD nomination@FormalDude Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: That's fine. Speedy deletion is a potential outcome of AfD though (see WP:EARLY). ––FormalDude talk 22:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Came here through a link in the AfD of the principal. Same nominator with another worthwhile AfD. Topic has more serious coverage and may meet the WP:GNG. Still, the article is in far worse shape and WP:TNT applies. Also, given its cuddly nature, I think we should hold this topic to the most stringent standards of WP:ORG, otherwise we'll be flooded with cutiez. So, while a different case, I cannot embracez keeping this article either. gidonb (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 19 March 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.