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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Fashions[edit]

Raja Fashions (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)

Not notable. Advertisement. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long-established tailor serving the UK (with an unusual and interesting business model), with resultant editorial, not advertorial, coverage in UK newspapers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy Dingley ... and Google News kinda prove it's notable, Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - will be familiar to almost anyone who's regularly read British newspapers or Private Eye in the last decade, and sources exist. Blythwood (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actually instead or at least Draft, because based from the current article, it contains nothing actually convincing, the information is simply what there is to say about the company and the sources are not actually better (there's no matter whether it's long-established as that hardly ever actually means anything to AfD, unless it's something historic); this would need actual showful improvements suggesting it can be a better article, because the current one has noticeable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with the option to convert to an article about the company's founder, Raja Daswani. Several sources cover the founder in much more detail compared to the company, such as [1], [2], [3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there appears to be a fair bit of in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2016 (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.