Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragrance Direct

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. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrance Direct

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

A7,G11 with no independent sources created by their PR company. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple trivial source articles, but nothing substantial. Companies tend to start attracting source material at around the 100-employee mark, but their notability and level of importance to the project is still so trivial, I will usually lean towards delete if evidence of notability is not contained in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources in the article, and claim to fame is that the had a top 20 retweet during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Well,... Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2015 (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.