Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New and Lingwood


 * 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

New and Lingwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:ORG. My search could not find proper sources; one source in the article merely reports on the sale of the business, which WP:ORGDEPTH specifically names as trivial coverage. They do supply a notable school and sell things to Prince Charles, but notability is not inherited. There are also some COI/promotional concerns. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The company page has proper references and all spam information has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando8039 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Until some established editors removed all the spam and puffery, this article was oozing and dripping with some of the most blatant adspeak I have ever seen on Wikipedia - not a copy of, but extremely similar to the tone of the language on their website that had also been written by a hired copy writer. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sorry,, nice try. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - While nothing merits blatant adulatory promow*nk, as a British-based fashion and dress historian I'm certainly well aware of New and Lingwood, what they do, and I would have expected them to be provably notable. Unfortunately all my reference books are currently in storage, including a couple I'm pretty sure would be very helpful for this. So I am not voting keep or delete, because I believe the company is notable, but I cannot prove that, or disprove my belief, due to not having my books to hand to confirm. Mabalu (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This being deleted now doesn't prevent it from being recreated later if books are found that establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, weakest ever? I did a search expecting to find dozens of sources going on about the legend and brand etc. I was really dissapointed. The coverage wasn't really in-depth and there wasn't a significant amount. L3X1 (distænt write)  21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this article is a WP:PEACOCK in all its splendor.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently there seem to be unsupported details in the infobox that don't appear in the text. These should at least be sourced (if that's possible), in the text, before a final decision is taken? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notabilty, just reads like spam and/or an advert. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 20:05, 27 December 2017 (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.