- 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 no consensus. Black Kite 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Romain Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like advertising to me. Prod because there are external links there, but I do not see why those say this topic is a notable one. CynofGavuf 12:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Third party articles at [1], [2], and at [3]. Article is not the least advertising in tone, just briefly describing a notable specialist company. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources above meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources are jewellery/watch industry sites, per WP:COMPANY coverage from "media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Although these websites are probably independent of the subject, they look to be aimed at promoting the industry in general. Incidentally the article is an abridged version of their Facebook page [4]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (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.