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.  Sandstein  20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jersey[edit]

Simon Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted by prod and restored through Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Simon_Jersey, with the WP:SPA creator's comment "Article had more than sufficient references and authoritative external links. If more detail is needed, I would rather be told what, so that I can supply these, than the page deleted. Thank you". I believe the rationale of the prod, which was copied to the author's talk page during the prod stage, was clear enough. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You asked for authoritative links and references - I would consider articles in The Daily Mail, The Times, and The Independent, as well as Team GB, plus Wiki links from both Emirates Airlines and David Ross' pages to be exactly this. The company will be supplying the formal wear that the British athletes wear at the 2016 Rio Olympics, an event expected to be seen by almost a billion people worldwide, and as Wikipedia's purpose is to supply the public with an authoritative source of information on a vast array of subjects, I cannot see what issue there would be with this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcanders88 (talk • contribs) 23:26, September 24, 2015‎ (UTC)

The Times and The Independent are certainly quality sources. TT, unfortunately, is not free, and the preview of the article seem to focus on the company, but someone named David Ross, who bought it. The Independent article is about the company's BUILDING - it's an architectural essay/blog. That lends very little to the argument that the company is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now unless someone wants it drafted and userfied as I found a few links here and there but not much for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches do not turn up enough to meet notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. As SwisterTwister, userfy if someone is interested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 8 October 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.