Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias le Fèvre


 * 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 moved to draft. bd2412 T 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathias le Fèvre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the sources here are promotional. All of the sources that seem to be interviews are in fact just paid articles by suit companies. Once promotional sources are discounted, there's not much left. From those, I see no WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, this article was previously declined as an AfC, and entered mainspace by its author sidestepping AfC. Those problems combined make me believe the article is both problematic and non-notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Keep: Additional sources has been added to the article to prove notability. The subject is notable within its industry. This argument is supported by a social media following over 150,000 followers on its Instagram profile, several industry relevant press features, interviews and work references with notable industry relevant brands. The sources that were marked as promotional has been deleted and replaced with other non-promotional sources. Being a new author on Wikipedia I want to give my sincere apology for any sidesteps in regards to AfC. This was unintentionally and I will make sure that this does not happen again. "JoshuaAnderson15 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep - The subject has indication of notability through multiple reliable non-promotional secondary sources. Evidence:   Richard flemming78 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note see Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuaAnderson15 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify - article was already rejected by AfC but was moved outside of process to article space despite not quite being ready. After closing the sockpuppet investigation I've given the author some advice on finding more sources like the detailed writeup in The Gentleman, but clearly they need more time to work on it and make it a good encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement. The other sources provided are pretty bare, but a model getting somewhat prominent coverage in many independent sources seems to suggest that notability is there, we just need to find more complete information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Ivanvector signed,Rosguill talk 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This feedback is much appreciated. I believe that I will be able to find more complete information about the subject through deeper research. I will just need more time for this. JoshuaAnderson15 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Ivanvector and Rosguill. I found this by trying to clean up the inevitable daily glut of pages that are in mainspace but were still filed in — an error which usually results from situations exactly like this, where the creator submitted it to the AFC review queue and then immediately moved it into mainspace themselves without waiting for the AFC process to finish. If it hadn't already had an AFD template on it, accordingly, I would otherwise have moved it straight back into draftspace on "out of process move" grounds — so that's the correct resolution to the AFD process too. No, the sources here aren't enough yet — but the creator does have the right to some time to find more, which is exactly what draftspace is for. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 October 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.