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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugardaddie.com[edit]

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

fails WP:WEBCRIT. this looks like an advert for the site. the coverage is mainly tabloid in nature. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Not enough indepth sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a source of free advertising. Insufficient indicia of any actual notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; entirely promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (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.