Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmetic Solutions


 * 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. North America1000 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cosmetic Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page fails the general notability guideline. I am not sure, why it was created. Zunailmeredia (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominating user has been reported to the "Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The other article nominated for deletion by this user on the same day is a BLP and the subject of that article has reported receiving a blackmail email. The case is OTRS 2016042810015351. --Krelnik (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria.  References are either non-independent or are mere autogenerated directory listings.  Deli nk (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. I won't offer an official !vote at this time, but the references currently in the article appear to be run of the mill business directory listings which do not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG.  -- Finngall   talk  14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only sources are listings, and the current content would need to be TNT'd to be encyclopedic. czar  16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: This is not the yellow pages. -- dsprc   [talk]  19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still nothing at all for any actual notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 3 June 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.