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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator after sufficient evidence for notability found. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Naylor-Leyland[edit]

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

I do not see any notability, but obviously speedy nominating article with dozens of sources does not make sense, hence I bring it there. It looks to me that this is a typical example of a coatrack. Apparently, the major notability claim is that she is a contributor in Vogue. I am afraid this is not enough. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No notability? I beg to differ. She's a contributing editor for Vogue Magazine and Harper's Bazaar, has two shoe collections with French Sole, has a fragrance with Lauder, is featured frequently in Tatler and other society magazines as a socialite, and has a large social media following. There are plenty of secondary sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might very well be wrong, but let us see what others say.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a large following on Instagram (94.4k), is a 'contributing editor to Vogue Magazine and Harper's Bazaar' and is featured prominently in the fashion industry.--Dreamy Jazz (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete number of instagram followers is not a sign of notability. We lack the needed reliable sources about her to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were Vogue, Tatler, and Harper's Bazaar not reliable sources? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think features by The Telegraph [1] and Architectural Digest [2] go a ways to establish notability, don't you? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very in-depth coverage from sources like The Telegraph and Architectural Digest. [3][4] I found these sources in less than 5 seconds. Of course the nom shouldn't have speedy nominated and these sources were two of the nom-admitted "dozens of sources" already in the article. The nom didn't even have to do a g-search to follow WP:BEFORE but just look at the sources they admit were already present. --Oakshade (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph reads like a paid advert, but indeed I should have noticed AD which is not and which provides notability. As far as I am concerned, it can be closed now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2017 (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.