Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraphine maternity

:{{la|Seraphine maternity}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seraphine_maternity Stats])

:({{Find sources|Seraphine maternity}})

Delete, this designer lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely a WP:ONEEVENT issue Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep -- There is huge global interest in Kate Middleton’s fashion and the brands she wears. There are multiple independent sources cited and since the event the brand has become internationally noticed. David1978S (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- A NN shop that happens to have been patronised by a royal. I do not think we normally accept being a royal warrant holder as conferring notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep - It's not one event or just the royal. First page of ghits had [http://www.thenextwomen.com/2012/05/21/cecile-reinaud-founder-s-raphine-maternity-wear-dressing-bumps-angelina-jolie-halle-berry this], a year prior to the middleton press about outfitting Angelina Jolie and Halle Berry. I don't know how stellar that site is, but it's just the first page of hits. Search with accents and for the designer name, too. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete Not everyone who makes an item of clothing worbn by the Royal family is notable, and here is not ayother basis for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, so what about all of the other press (see above)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG - there are enough sources to justify at least a stub. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:Delete on second look. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::Could you elaborate? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG. I personally am not of the opinion that being worn by The Duchess of Cambridge and having press surround it makes a particular brand notable. If this article were about some cheap brand that people were shocked that she wore and it got press, I don't think we would say that it inherently makes the brand notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, so as I asked DGG, what about all of the other press (see above) that's not connected to the Duchess? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - most of the delete votes cast thus far still operate under the pretense that the Duchess news is the only news. It's not. So anyone care to add a reason for deletion? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I have added further reference to Celebrities that have worn the brand – not just about Kate Middleton David1978S (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete- Agree with the nominator that the article sources do not meet the requirement at WP:CORPDEPTH and has a one event type feel to it. The company has not received substantial coverage in notable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 5 December 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.