Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burton


 * 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. If you're actually interested in merging, please contact me so I can get the stuff back. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Burton

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible WP:HOAX. Google searches find no references,. Moustache style guides, make no mention of it. This talk page comment by the editor indicates the article is probably a stunt to promote an this advertising campaign. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Note: The company's own history of Montague Burton makes no mention of a moustache style called "The Burton". — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — —  Cactus Writer |   needles  21:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — —  Cactus Writer |   needles  21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't find any sources independent of this menswear company that mention this style of mustache. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete  I think 'hoax' is the wrong word - it's a 'genuine' campaign, the chap existed, it's a real shop, and they're doing a fund-raiser for charity. Unfortunately, it fails notability. Considering the talkpage comment, I think it can only be viewed as 'blatant advertizing'; the fact that it's for charity is beside the point.    Chzz  ►  21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - Hoax is exactly the right word. It's a pretty safe bet that this was made up out of whole cloth by the menswear shop's advertising agency. We should not facilitate the creation of ersatz history in this manner. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the 'speedy' - can't be, as it was CSD'd and declined earlier  Chzz  ►  23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have now struck the delete too; changing to merge, below  Chzz  ►  23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not speedy. It's not blatant advertising.  Very noble, but seems to be WP:NEO flavored to me.  Regardless, though, of the concensus of why, it shouldn't really stay. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WP:HOAX and WP:OR or possibly WP:ADVERT. I have heard an expanation of "going for a Burton" and it was not related to moustaches.  The association with UN is also fanciful.  A chain of shops certainly existed: I recall buying a suit there, the article has a few nuggets of truth, but there is so much fabrication that it should be deleted.  Some one can then expand Montague Burton or Burton (clothing) - on the shops of Montague Burton Ltd.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The chain of shops is alive and well; I added this link earlier; that's their website.  Chzz  ►  23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Montague Burton. The man himself is notable and this would be appropriate for a couple of lines in a "legacy" or "impact" section. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per DustFormsWords; I think that the (admittedly primary) sources are enough for such a mention. (Changed from earlier delete vote)  Chzz  ►  23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Chzz, I am confused by your comment. What primary source have you found that describes a moustache style called "The Burton?" The only primary source I have found, the company's own history page, doesn't mention it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - obvious advertising campaign by an obvious COI role account created for the purpose.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:43, 22 October 2009 (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.