Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Observatoire International


 * 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

L'Observatoire International

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of notability. References are self-sourced (other than a reference which does not have anything directly to do with this company.)     Joel Why?  talk  16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Joel, if you go to, they have links to outside articles about themselves. IMO, it sounds strange to name a "lighting boutique" "The International Observatory", it sounds more like something SETI would be running.--Education does not equal common sense. (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentNomination withdrawn, please do not delete.    Joel Why? (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ? Confused, why the all of a sudden change of heart, after doubly nominating this article? The article is just a list of inline links. I do not see anything pointing to any criteria for inclusion in the current state of the article. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  11:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I originally stumbled upon the page after nominating the Hervé Descottes page (i.e. guy who established this firm) for deletion as not being notable. Author then improved the page and demonstrated that he is, in fact, notable. Based on that information, I've seen enough that I believe the page deserves to remain. It's a mess in its current state, but I think it could be fixed. I don't have particularly strong feeling about keeping the page or anything, but since I now believe it's notable, I didn't want to be responsible for having it deleted, either.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2012 (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.