- 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. Michig ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Bikini Luxe
AfDs for this article:
- Bikini Luxe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article lacks independent sources--the sources are press releases, blogs, and/or interviews. Note: prior AfD was withdrawn by nominator, so this has not been fully discussed. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I won't even comment on my last comment there!...., Anyway the sources aren't perfect and I can't find much better on GNews so will have to say Delete as fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 03:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CORPDEPTH per nom - they may be notable but sourcing is not showing it, and this type of promo article really is best via WP:AFC before being live. Widefox; talk 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment from article creator The article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH per [1], [2], [3] not press releases, so the article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH. May I add [4] and a VOGUE article [5], [6]. -- Karlhard ( talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply Karlhard, I am looking right now at the external website where BIKINILUXESWIM paid for this article. Don't you think you should declare your COI? The extent of your promotional editing is truly massive. Here are some of the warnings you deleted from your talk page. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Let us discuss more given that the recent nomination ended up as keep.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Let us discuss more given that the recent nomination ended up as keep.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources present seem weak; marketing, self-published, in passing, the usual minor Internet presence of a non-notable but non-hoax company. It's a business, it exists, this doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable--based on PR.The first AfD was closed when the nom withdrew in the face of opposition. It was good that it was renominated. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 21 March 2015 (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. Michig ( talk) 08:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Bikini Luxe
AfDs for this article:
- Bikini Luxe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article lacks independent sources--the sources are press releases, blogs, and/or interviews. Note: prior AfD was withdrawn by nominator, so this has not been fully discussed. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I won't even comment on my last comment there!...., Anyway the sources aren't perfect and I can't find much better on GNews so will have to say Delete as fails GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 03:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CORPDEPTH per nom - they may be notable but sourcing is not showing it, and this type of promo article really is best via WP:AFC before being live. Widefox; talk 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment from article creator The article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH per [1], [2], [3] not press releases, so the article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH. May I add [4] and a VOGUE article [5], [6]. -- Karlhard ( talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply Karlhard, I am looking right now at the external website where BIKINILUXESWIM paid for this article. Don't you think you should declare your COI? The extent of your promotional editing is truly massive. Here are some of the warnings you deleted from your talk page. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Let us discuss more given that the recent nomination ended up as keep.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Let us discuss more given that the recent nomination ended up as keep.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources present seem weak; marketing, self-published, in passing, the usual minor Internet presence of a non-notable but non-hoax company. It's a business, it exists, this doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable--based on PR.The first AfD was closed when the nom withdrew in the face of opposition. It was good that it was renominated. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 21 March 2015 (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.