Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Christian


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Christian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as the brand is non-notable, and the article does not serve to edify on the history or significance of the brand but only function as a sort of advertisement for their current line of clothing. Additionally, the page has been marked as needing fixing for over 3 years. --Alegoo92 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Ruby   Murray  16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Ruby   Murray  16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of secondary coverage supporting notability. If the article has a promotional tone, then it should be fixed, not deleted. Ruby   Murray  16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability of individual and brand are well established. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fixable, and a very notable, well-known and established brand - it is virtually a "household name" in the gay community here in the UK, and I am pretty sure there is no shortage of sources - I will have a quick check just to make sure. Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. All issues are fixable/fixed. I stopped, as of yet, after the first ten interviews with the founder. There are dozens more. I'm also fine with the blend of the article about the brand and the person, they are one and the same for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of secondary sources available, even if the article is pretty WP:UGLY. hinnk (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.