Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Suit That Fits

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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Suit That Fits[edit]

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

Appears to be borderline WP:CORP notability at best. Most of the sources are to industry awards that will need to be discussed for their impact on notability. The rest of the sources have to do with startup (crowd)funding, which I think past AfDs have generally agreed doesn't make a company noteworthy. Brianhe (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage does not look to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG Jbh ^Talk 16:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is something interesting about the awards: they are none of them at all significant. This is typical of coi editors trying to add whatever they can possibly find to make an articles on a completely unimpressive business or person look more impressive. Founding stories like this article's " Warren stayed with a family of tailors who made him a fine woolen suit. On returning to the UK, Warren and David met... " are typical also. This appears to be one of a new ring of paid editors. One or two of the articles they wrote are actually notable enough to rewrite, but not this one. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I'm not seeing much convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 7 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.