Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsaDora cosmetics


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

IsaDora cosmetics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:CORP. most of the gnews hits are cosmetic industry sources so not third party. Other mentions simply confirm existence of company. LibStar (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - has an article on Swedish Wikipedia. Was a partner and sponsor of the Eurovision 2013, is a major cosmetic company in Sweden. Does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added source for Eurovision partnership, sponsoring a huge event like Eurovision is not something a small company can do.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/Comment - BabbaQ makes a very compelling point that this company is major enough and strongly established enough to sponsor an event like Eurovision. I am leaning keep, but I would like to see a bit more expansion and detail, and sourcing, on the article. Mabalu (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to modify comment into a definite keep vote, although I still think some better sources can be found. Slightly worried about reliance on blogs and press releases (which are not usually considered appropriate sources) but the company definitely sponsored Eurovision and is a globally successful brand. In addition, the article is not promotional in tone and appropriately neutral. Mabalu (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - probably a borderline case as a small-to-medium-sized company; Invima AB had a turnover of 374 MSEK = 43 MEUR in 2012, and 116 employees, but it's far from certain that total international sales figures end up in the Swedish company owning the brand, it could just be licensing fees that trickle back. However, marketing-intense consumer products of this kind tends to get more attention, as BabbaQ's case in point shows, so I'm leaning towards keep. Tomas e (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2013 (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.