- 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Essential Beauty
- Essential Beauty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles about non-notable subjects are contrary to Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This article is therefore being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Improvid ( talk) 09:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Could Improvid, the nominator, expand on the reasons for nomination - why is it considered to lack notability? Seventy-three salons is not an inconsiderable number. MartinJones ( talk) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the direction we should look into is whether this page meets the requirements of WP:ORG NerudaPoet ( talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:CORP. mostly routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 13:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 13:07, 2 October 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Essential Beauty
- Essential Beauty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles about non-notable subjects are contrary to Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This article is therefore being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Improvid ( talk) 09:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Could Improvid, the nominator, expand on the reasons for nomination - why is it considered to lack notability? Seventy-three salons is not an inconsiderable number. MartinJones ( talk) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the direction we should look into is whether this page meets the requirements of WP:ORG NerudaPoet ( talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:CORP. mostly routine coverage. LibStar ( talk) 13:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 13:07, 2 October 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.