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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerford Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTADVERTISING this article has already been speedy deleted as advertising. I suggest salting it as the article creator is a SPA with a probable undeclared WP:COI. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been edited in line with other similar wiki pages i.e. Reiss and has been improved further. All notions of advertising have been deleted and new citations included.

Please highlight specific areas of the article that do not follow guidelines and they will be revised if appropriate.

This article should not have been set to speedy deletion previously JB17 11:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Breedon (talk • contribs) — Jessica Breedon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The main problem with this article is notability. You have made no edits outside this topic so judging by your editing pattern and your user name you seem to have a possible link with this company. Please read WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure as is required. Direct editing by editors on articles with which they have a conflict of interest including paid editors is very strongly discouraged. You may want to also read WP:NORG and also this essay that explains why just because there is a similar article on wikipedia that this article does not have an automatic right to exist here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear on the notability side the sources are 2 partner merchant sites that sell their products, 2 references from the company's web site, 3 twitter pages, 1 linkedin page, 1 rating of their equity crowdfunding campaign where they raised £5k of a £100k target. There is no indepth coverage of the company in reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage of the company online in WP:RS, and a Google site search of GQ also turns up no mention of them, despite what the company's blog reference claims. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: An article with a variety of primary and unreliable sources. No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing in the article doesn't speak to notability and a google news search turns up a solitary press release. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2018 (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.