Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Blazer


 * 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   merge to Yardley of London.  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

English Blazer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A few potential self-promotional issues, primarily may not meet WP:notability guidelines. Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep OR merge to Yardley of London -- possibly with a disambiguator if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep with rewrite OR merge to Yardley of London - English Blazer is a brand name for a whole range of fragrances for men that according to website was founded in 1951 (but other sources disagree), and I'm seeing quite a few hits for it on Google News, though nothing very substantial: 1 2. I think most fragrances are best being kept in lists on their creator's pages (or if the pages are already unwieldly, as a separate page, a la (theoretical) List of Chanel perfumes) unless they have the notability of Chanel No. 5 or Joy (perfume). As a fragrance English Blazer's certainly mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Perfume but not really in great depth (certainly more info than on English Bluebells though). Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:26, 28 January 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.