Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph & Russo


 * 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 no consensus. Even if one discounts the IPs and such, there's no consensus among established editors.  Sandstein  19:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ralph & Russo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of these awards are important; none of the references substantial. The articles is part of an promotional campaign for the company and its founder--see the adjacent AfD for the article on the co-founder, which essentially duplicates the content. .  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ralph & Russo have received significant coverage since the company was founded in multiple, well-established, reliable newspapers, as well as in fashion magazines. It clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT The fact that the article could be improved does not negate the notability of the company. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Ralph & Russo is an international luxury brand. They receive excellent publicity through notable industry publications, and other international press. They are the first British brand in 100 years to be invited to show at Paris Haute Couture Fashion week, and are on schedule. The awards mentioned in the initial entry are significant industry awards and show the success and position of Ralph & Russo within the fashion and luxury industry.In reference to the Walpole awards mentioned in the initial article please see this link here: http://www.thewalpole.co.uk/awards/. You can see that Ralph & Russo is positioned with brands such as Rolls Royce, Burberry, and Gucci. The original article is factual and not promotional. As Tamara Ralph is a co-founder of Ralph & Russo, and also holds the position of Creative Director within the company there will be inevitable cross overs between the company article and the public profile of Tamara Ralph herself. Ralph & Russo is built on the closeness that Tamara Ralph and Michael Russo have to the company. The notable clients section on the original article highlights the position of the brand and where they sit on the luxury continuum of brands - all this reflects the success of a company only 8 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.216.93 (talk • contribs) — 80.249.216.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Unqualified vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--the problem is primarily promotionalism . That a single purpose account should come and write a pair of articles on a firm and its proprietor is almost always the work of a COI editor, and generally a paid editor. To call a brand notable because it is sold along with actually notable brands is just an attempt at notability by association, and the comment just above seems an attempt atc ontinuing their advertising here. But based on what says, there might be a possibility for a single article if she or another responsible  editor will deal with it--it would seem to me that article, presumably it should be the person not the company, as the argument seems to be that the creative director is the key givingthecompany the importance.  DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The content has been checked and can't be discredited on any account, however, further elaboration is required. CAF1234 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unqualified vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ralph & Russo has nearly 2million instagram followers and when you google them there is much written about them so they are obviously a large brand and therefore the page should not be deleted but perhaps they can reduce the promotional copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.152.205 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unqualified vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ralph & Russo was chosen by Meghan Markle for her engagement announcement photograph. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unqualified vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? I provided a source.  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - A number of the votes about aren't really justified suitably. Most of the given sources are either non-independent or only give a few lines to the actual firm itself. That said, the Times source and This Vogue article (read past starting quote) are both of high quality. I think notability is satisfied. Post the chainsaw taken to it by Nom I don't think the article is advertorial to the tune of warranting deletion on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Volue is nothing but a page of hype. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * delete no sighnificant coverage, all refs are promotional.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not include sources in my vote above, but here are some - the Financial Times, Business Insider , The Guardian re "the only extant British haute couture house" , The Times , The New York Times , plus some in The Australian that are subscriber only, one in the Business section about a UK billionaire taking a stake in Ralph & Russo. I fail to see how this is not significant coverage - if it's not, then we should be deleting Stella McCartney, Victoria Beckham and other haute couture or celebrity designers. Not that I have any interest in fashion personally, but they certainly meet WP:ORGCRIT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep  - Commenting on both Tamara Ralph's and Ralph & Russo's discussions, but the collective subject seems to meet the criteria. I'm cautious of inherited notability here, despite the fact there is notability here somewhere I don't think deleting both articles is the answer. The Vogue and The Times references that have already been mentioned seem very in-depth. A few others in the FT and British press seem to cover them well, so for me pass general notability. The question is, does the subject warrant two articles or one? I say keep Ralph & Russo, but merge Tarama Ralph's article, as the brand seems to get the most coverage.FelixFLB (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (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.