Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole de Carle London (Luxury lingerie)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole de Carle London (Luxury lingerie)[edit]

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

Marginally notable article, created by an editor with a possible Conflict of interest, with only one good source I could find online - a single passing mention in The Telegraph. There is also a Daily Mail article about the same photo shoot. In such case, its exposure (pardon the pun) was once last year - in connection with the 2012 Olympics, thus implicating WP:NOT#NEWS. I found nothing reliable from a few different Google searches, but found some Pinterest hits. I am not certain about the reliability of Lingerie Insight as a source. It appears to be spam, but the company itself may be notable. If it is not deleted, then it perhaps ought to be moved or merged into Nichole de Carle Marine, the parent company? Bearian (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerable doubts about notability, without (for example) evidence of substantial turnover. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2013 (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.