Muhammad Yunus

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 as this all seems obvious and the current sourcing seems convincing (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finery (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Online retailer recently founded. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Written by a likely COI editor. Was CSD'd by another editor, but reluctantly declined (see history) so here we are at AfD. Not seeing anything encyclopedic about this topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks like the page lacks references but I think the extensive external links covering the subject could be worked into the article to confirm notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability requirements, even if some of us, including me, don't find it very interesting or important. Borock (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable article, sources and external links covers notability requirements.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - those external links badly need to become references though. Artw (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep – Comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. For some sources, see here and the custom search below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: "Finery, London" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR

• Snow keep As above, clear WP:CORPDEPTH in the sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Snow Keep comments ignore that this was essentially spam, CSD'd and an Admin nearly deleted it. The article has been renamed, the title turned into a DAB and the contents extensively rewritten so it does not even resemble what was AfD'd. At this point the nomination should be procedurally closed because all the changes make it impossible to evaluate. Call it a withdrawal. Legacypac (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacypac, assuming I'm the admin in question an Admin nearly deleted it is demonstrably untrue by virtue of the fact that this AFD is even taking place. I'd appreciate you not telling lies about me in furtherance of your obsessive vendetta against every page User:Neelix has ever touched. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind thanks for doing a lot of the grunt work scoring through tens of thousands of redirects required to clean up the Neelix mess (an editor who was the subject of wide community outrage, a redirect topic ban, and who many people believe only retains the ability to edit due to the Super Mario Effect.) shows how many of his redirects are now red The only connection he had to this title was he created the title as a redirect, something I only noticed when I sent this to AfD and twinkle automatically notified him. He actually has nothing to do with this article which was written over his redirect years later. If I misinterpreted this comment I am truly sorry. " Iridescent (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,771 bytes) (-156)‎ . . (Much as it pains me, I have to decline this, although feel free to AFD it. It's (just about) adequately sourced, and not quite over the line into spam, so I can't in good faith speedy it." Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.