Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles & Keith


 * 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. Mabulu has cleaned up the article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Charles & Keith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been tagged with multiple issues, none of which seem to have been addressed in over a year. The largest of which, in my opinion, is that this "article" is simply an advert for the company. Onel5969 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Charles & Keith seems like a notable and popular company in Singapore in particular, but elsewhere also. Parts of the article read a bit like an advertisement, but it wouldn't take much to fix these bits or just remove them from the article. The article having multiple issues is not, in itself, a valid reason for deletion.  FF20  1  0   15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . While I agree with the concept that the company is notable, this article reads almost completely like an advert. And you're right that it could be fixed.  The issue becomes that this issue has been flagged for over a year, and no fix has been done. If the article were fixed, I would have no issue with it.  The problem is that how long does WP allow an advertisement to sit on the site? Onel5969 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep/comment - I have to note that Deletion is not cleanup seems to fit here. The article is a mess, but we've got fantastic sources from The Japan Times and Forbes.com among others in the references so it definitely seems notable. It's not really appropriate to use the deletion process as a clean-up. Mabalu (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - again, see my comment above, which would come under the heading of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I followed the essayDeletion is not cleanup in nominating this article for deletion, in the hopes that it would spur folks to clean up the article. But I also think that Using deletion as cleanup is just as valid.  If the article is not cleaned up as a result of this discussion, I think that it should be removed. Onel5969 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Charles @ Keith is a lovely change from the extortianately expensive well known brands and my wife loves their high quality and fashionable products. Having just bought 3 pairs of shoes and a lovely handbag in the branch at Terminal 21 at Bangkok I think she would be really offended by the thought of deleting the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSaBumrungsri (talk • contribs) 15:38, October 18, 2014‎
 * MarkSaBumrungsri is a new account created after this deletion discussion was started, and with no other edits. Meters (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - For attention of Onel5969 - I have cleaned up and wikified the article. I actually did not do any additional research - I simply used the URLS that were already given in the text, checked them, and based my edits on the existing text. No real additional research was carried out and no major edits were made other than cleaning up the cites/URLS and throwing out anything obviously promotional/nonencyclopaedic. I'm still sceptical as to whether it was appropriate to bring this to AFD, but I think there is now no reason for this to be under threat of deletion. IMO, I don't see why a basic clean-up and quick check through the sources couldn't have been done before nomination - especially because at second glance, there was clearly a good solidly cited article under there. Mabalu (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2014 (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.