Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stührling
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stührling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A US watch company. Non-notable. Three references are provided: one from a retailer, one from "Luxury Watches That Impress Review Blog", and one from linkedin.com. Googling the name brings material from retailers, message board chitchat, and so forth, but I don't notice anything reliable. Hoary (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete lots of mentions or sales sites, nothing about the company. A watch or two featured in GQ and GQ Mexico, nothing about the company, barely anything about the watches. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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.