Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangle Teezer

Tangle Teezer

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

To my recollection this is indistinguishable from the version previously deleted as G11 spam. Author ~~appears to be~~ is a sock-puppet trying to avoid association with the previous efforts. Bazj (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, sockpuppetry confirmed. Bazj (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sourcing to meet GNG. Company has been recognised with several awards. Clearly notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple independent sources that provide coverage of the company (1 2 and 3 after just a quick search). Meets WP:GNG. If these is a problem with promotional tone in the article, it should be fixed, not deleted. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep is notable, covered by decent sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]