- 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Kleeneze
- Kleeneze ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2014. I added some references & another editor added more "citation needed" tags for which I can't find any RS. Discussed on talk page as not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) & GNG. — Rod talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Evidence of notability is absent, as I outlined on Talk page here. [1]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Questionably notable company as, from what it seems, it's only a locally known and operating company, unlikely to have considerable coverage aside from the expected. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to CVSL, its parent company since Oct. 2015. Notable, with sufficient secondary coverage from WP:RS, but no longer worth keeping as a second article. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to CVSL per NeemNarduni2, seems most appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Kleeneze is more notable and has more history than CVSL. Peter James ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, it has reliable sources not included in the page. There are a lot of controversies which makes company notable, research in detail and add to the page. Ireneshih ( talk) 06:30, 9 February 2016 (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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Kleeneze
- Kleeneze ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2014. I added some references & another editor added more "citation needed" tags for which I can't find any RS. Discussed on talk page as not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) & GNG. — Rod talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Evidence of notability is absent, as I outlined on Talk page here. [1]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Questionably notable company as, from what it seems, it's only a locally known and operating company, unlikely to have considerable coverage aside from the expected. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to CVSL, its parent company since Oct. 2015. Notable, with sufficient secondary coverage from WP:RS, but no longer worth keeping as a second article. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to CVSL per NeemNarduni2, seems most appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Kleeneze is more notable and has more history than CVSL. Peter James ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, it has reliable sources not included in the page. There are a lot of controversies which makes company notable, research in detail and add to the page. Ireneshih ( talk) 06:30, 9 February 2016 (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.