Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Fly Pro

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Fly Pro

[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!

Spanish Fly Pro (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)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. I can't find any significant coverage of it in reliable sources, just lots of paid coverage and advertorial like this and this. Spammy tone and edit history suggest undisclosed paid editing, and an article with the same title was speedy deleted G5 and G11 in 2017, but this article didn't quite seem to meet WP:CSD#G11. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, and Sexuality and gender. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a through-and-through advertisement and should be deleted posthaste. Oliver Phile (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reeks of paid editing Ominateu (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nominator and previous commenter that this is clearly an advertisement page created by an undisclosed paid editor. I think it's possible that this product is just barely notable enough that a proper short article could reasonably be created on it, but I don't really see much worth salvaging here.

— Moriwen (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We certainly don't need a PROMO article about a garden variety convenience store item which isn't advised for use by any reputable medical agency and which is likely used for illicit purposes beyond what its labeling depicts. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (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.