Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoStiletto.com

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. KTC (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EcoStiletto.com

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

Although I'm one of the most passionate environmentalists you'll find, this article is questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. It's worth noting that when the author started this in March 2010, they said at the talk page the article may need more work but to not delete but frankly I'm not seeing much better here. Pinging past users MrOllie, Eastmain and Ged UK as well environmentalist Velella and lastly DGG in case he would like to comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. altogether insufficient references for notability. The usua,l combination--some are not truly independent, some are mentions. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very very thinly disguised advertisement. This is nothing about the environment but rather about about selling, fashion and "beauty". But, regrettably, those are not reasons for deletion. However, the lack of anything significant in the refs, all passing mentions, and regurgitated press releases - often with appalling English ("...an super chic online magazine..." from Cosmopolitan) - is a good reason. No merit here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was only involved in this to decline a speedy request as it had enough to pass A7, which is a lower standard. This doesn't look up to much on first glance from a GNG standpoint. Ged UK 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 3 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.