Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tempest


 * 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.  A  Train talk 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

William Tempest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the article is certainly promotional. However the sources are enough. When Vogue and other RS write about your work like they seem to have done many times for this guy, GNG is met. Lots of mentions in other sources too, if you search. His school wrote him up, Marie Claire interviewed him about Pajamas, the Guardian had this short piece, the Telegraph reviewed his collection and Fashionista profiled him. Those aren't perfect sources, but they are enough for GNG. The article being promotional and/or created by an SPA are not reasons for deletion. The three reasons fro deletion advanced in the nomination are therefore all false.   104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looks like I was distracted by the promotional stuff, and did not look into this as well as I should have done.  Am now editing the article to make it more neutral. Edwardx (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No sweat. If you have changed your mind, you could withdraw the AfD.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The refs in the article don't support notability so I can see why this is at AFD. The refs provided above are better but still look on the weak side so i'm leaning to delete but will reserve judgement as better refs might be forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:04, 29 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.