- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
17 Cosmetics
- 17 Cosmetics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Fixing the broken link yielded an article with barely a mention of this company/brand. Doesn't turn up elsewhere. Not notable. bd2412 T 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Piotrus Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
17 Cosmetics
- 17 Cosmetics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Fixing the broken link yielded an article with barely a mention of this company/brand. Doesn't turn up elsewhere. Not notable. bd2412 T 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Piotrus Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.