- 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. j⚛e decker talk 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
LFH illuminating brands
- LFH illuminating brands ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company does not seem very notable. The article is a stale, low quality WP:STUB. Discussions of move request on Talk page (3 participants) have been unanimous in favor of deletion. Previous prod indicating that the company has changed businesses (as well as its name), so the little information that is in the article is mostly incorrect anyway. BarrelProof ( talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient coverage for WP:GNG, no other claim to notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete the company may have unrealised potential for notability, Design Week were a go to source for reliable industry info in the UK, but the page can be recreated if needed. Gregkaye ( talk) 06:10, 24 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker talk 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
LFH illuminating brands
- LFH illuminating brands ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company does not seem very notable. The article is a stale, low quality WP:STUB. Discussions of move request on Talk page (3 participants) have been unanimous in favor of deletion. Previous prod indicating that the company has changed businesses (as well as its name), so the little information that is in the article is mostly incorrect anyway. BarrelProof ( talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient coverage for WP:GNG, no other claim to notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete the company may have unrealised potential for notability, Design Week were a go to source for reliable industry info in the UK, but the page can be recreated if needed. Gregkaye ( talk) 06:10, 24 June 2014 (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.