Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOREO

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOREO (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)

Article is promotional and most references are more or less advertisements for the company's products. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and do a WP:NPOV cleanup and stub it) Quicky search turned up enough possible refs from indy sources like SF chronicle, UK Independent, idigitaltimes, forbes[1] to make good claim to notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if it can actually be better improved but if not, delete for now until a better article can be made and the latter may actually be better (deleting for now). SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - afd is not a clean-up service. nor is it a tool to request expansion of article, as it is a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has sense been cleaned from promotional content. There was no need for an AFD if someone had cleaned up the content. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 18 November 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.