The Healthy Mummy: It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school.  It's also a complete advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  KJP1 ( talk ) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , Websites ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history.  Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article.  Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive.  Wozza369 ( talk ) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Leaning delete.  The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books.  It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here.  At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find.  Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox.  They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history.  Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have updated the page and the history.  Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article.  I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly.  I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error.  Wozza369 ( talk ) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional.  "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums".  All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported.  It reads like an advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more.  This [25] gives context on how the website is used, [26] and [27] seem to cover the website and the founder.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/ WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.  The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  HighKing ++ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It is going to have to be delete.  I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per above.  And it’s an advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete ! vote, so this is a duplicate.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made.  I’m just not very familiar with the process.  I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted.  KJP1 ( talk ) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:05, 18 April 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.

Discussion outcome: delete