Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeves of Belgravia


 * 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. Sufficient swallows found. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeeves of Belgravia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined speedy. I think that this is a thoroughly unremarkable business; the only ref that does not seem entirely run of the mill is the NYT article from 1979. It's pretty insubstantial and one swallow does not a summer make. TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the company that owns the business is itself a subsidiary of another company, and does not have its own article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the 8 refs only 2 offer anything that would count towards notability. These 2 are newspaper cuttings describing shop openings and count as routine coverage. A recently created article with likely COI. Szzuk (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. The article doesn't say they are part of the bigger Johnsons cleaners. However I now see they are. Szzuk (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Johnsons Cleaners UK as the perfectly obvious WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not totally sold on all of the sources added, since several do little more than report on the two acquisitions the store has been through. However, the HK Tatler and NYT articles, neither of which I found in my initial look, get it over the line. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Being run-of-the-mill is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the assertion is false as this is an exceptional business, specialising in luxury items and holding a royal warrant. This exceptional nature is recognised in educational work such as this and so the topic passes WP:GNG. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my first reaction to this was the same as yours, as I've known about Jeeves for years and thought it was a unique and notable business. However, as I started writing what I fully intended to be a 'keep' !vote, and looked for sources to back up my argument, I discovered that there really aren't any that offer any depth of coverage, and particularly none that separate Jeeves from its parent company, with whom I recommend merging it. Luxury does not equal notability and a small feature in an A-level Business Studies textbook definitely doesn't mean it passes the WP:GNGs in my view. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew, it is the coverage that is claimed to be run-of-the-mill, not the business. Please learn to distinguish the difference between notability and uniqueness. SpinningSpark 14:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination asserts that this is a "thoroughly unremarkable business" and this is quite false. As a further example of detailed coverage, see here.  There are many humdrum dry-cleaners, such as the one I use myself, but this one is something special and has coverage to match. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hardly in-depth coverage; its a nugget of triva. And being expensive does not confer notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Amongst other things, that detailed piece tells us that it was "the largest of its kind in Europe". This is clearly significant coverage and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I declined the speedy, and I have just added more sources to the article. I believe that it meets WP:ORGCRITE, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, these being The New York Times, The Guardian, the Independent, UPI (in several publications, here referenced to The Galveston Daily News), The Telegraph and the Hong Kong Tatler. I note too that the coverage extends from 1979, through 1980, 2003, 2014, and 2017. While some of the sources cover sales of the companies, they do not appear to me to be "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage", as they contain 6 or more paragraphs. I have not checked all databases for sources - I will add more if I find it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (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.