Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Claire & Esther


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sara Claire & Esther

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entry for a defunct business which appears to never have been particularly notable even when it was running. Sounds fab, but seems to fail general notability due to zero book/news hits, and very little RS on a quick Google. Biographical information is unreferenced and unverifiable. Someone with brand name as an ID tried to blank the page saying the business was defunct. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 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; 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable, this is one of the thinnest-resulting searches I've seen. The 'official website' is something in Chinese about pianos....TheLongTone (talk) 22:49, 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, Courcelles 00:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as subject is covered by notable third-party sources including The New York Times News Service, DailyCandy , plus other fashion sites , , and so on. Fashion is not my area of expertise but at least the verifiability and notability thresholds appear to be crossed. If the "official" website has gone defunct, the external link should be removed, not the whole article. - Dravecky (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All those sources are very superficial - no indepth coverage and zero critique - they basically read like press release rehashes or advertisements. All they really show is that the business existed once upon a time, not that it made any impact. I did see these, but don't think a bunch of weak PR links are sufficient to base an article on. The first link is basically just photos from the show. It's not really enough to demonstrate any notability, I'm afraid. Mabalu (talk) 23:57, 24 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 08:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - very little information available about this one, and nothing to denote its notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:51, 29 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.