Fantastic Services: More recently, Draft:Fantastic Services (also deleted multiple times per G11) have been the target of multiple socks.  Someone very much wants this article to exist.  This new recreation is different from previous versions however, and the author does not appear to be related to previous authors (as far as I can detect), so G4 and G5 do not apply.  So, I have reviewed the latest version based on its merits.
 The article is written with a very promotional tone.  That could be addressed, but it is supported by zero sources that meet the requirements outlined at WP:NCORP .  There are a few impressive-looking sources (UK broadsheet newspapers' websites), but those are all interviews ( WP:INTERVIEW ), and do not meet the ' secondary ' part of the requirements listed there.  There are some obvious rehashed press releases, which do not meet the ' independent ' criterion.  And, there are some flat-out dodgy sources.  I see nothing at all that meets all the criteria: reliable , secondary, independent and giving the subject significant depth (of the WP:CORPDEPTH variety).  I have not found any better sources online, and I conclude that the subject is likely non-notable, and should be deleted.  Girth Summit (blether) 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom .  Girth Summit (blether) 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt - Blatant LTA spam.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt with extreme prejudice.  This is PROMO, a home services company, ok maybe....  Oh they want to create millionaires with franchising?  Nope.  Blatant promotional, flowery language.  They were mentioned in the sources, but aren't mentioned at length nor are they non-promo.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom and Oaktree b.  Also consider wrapping the related article Rune Sovndahl up with this one as a poorly sourced BLP with same main editor (now blocked for WP:PAID editing), very similar writing style and issues as this article.  Flip Format ( talk ) 21:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt per nomination and Oaktree b.  User:Flip Format 's suggestion of wrapping Rune Sovndahl in with this nomination is a good one. It was deleted once following WP:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) , along with a speedy and two prods. Its current incarnation was started at Rune Hoy Sovndahl , in what looks like a second attempt at flying under the radar of watchlists. Uncle Spock ( talk ) 04:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It looks like there is now a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl . Flip Format ( talk ) 11:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt Clear advertising. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom. ABHammad ( talk ) 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete + Salt With extreme prejudice, this is the most egregious case of WP:PROMO I've ever seen. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and pass the salt please. Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:49, 2 May 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.

Discussion outcome: delete