Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AquaB

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. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AquaB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AquaB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false and baseless nomination that should be withdrawn. The article clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, and I have since added multiple new, verifiable, and independent sources to further strengthen its reliability and alignment with WP:GNG

You are a new or relatively inactive account that appears to be nominating articles without sufficient understanding of notability criteria or proper engagement with the article’s actual content and sourcing. Wikipedia encourages constructive editing and improvement — not careless deletion nominations.

Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOT, deletion should never be the first step when an article is clearly improvable and well-sourced, as is the case here. I strongly urge administrators and editors to dismiss this nomination and focus instead on collaborative improvements where needed. Sterling44 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for spamming. MER-C 16:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Niall J. English: Fails WP:NCORP. The Irish Times source is okay but that's only one source. I can't find any better sources. Merging with the founder's article is a good WP:ATD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

• Changing to Delete after the creator was blocked for UPE. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - likely paid-for sockpuppet spam. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aniflower and [1]. Creator blocked. MER-C 17:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G5). It is elegible for G5 and would have been deleted as such if it was not because of this AFD. MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meets WP:G5. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage we might expect for any small startup. Even if notability was subject to a "margin call" (which it isn't), the PROMO/PAID/COI issues would overshadow any grey area... Guliolopez (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2025 (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.