Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Archer

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Archer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination genuinely doesn't give me pleasure, as I've tried to save it by a bold merge of Luke Archer (fashion brand) and a rewrite, but ultimately, we have to be blunt - this was originally created as promo/conflict of edit editing by the designer's husband and business partner. Many of the sources are primary or press releases, and there is no evidence that the designer is sufficiently notable on his own merit. I can't find anything remotely reliable beyond a few "former student doing good' pieces on the Middlesex University website. So very sadly, I have to say that this article should be deleted, (although I'd love to see notability proved) and if Luke Archer lives up to his husband's grand claim that it will be a leading luxury brand by 2017, then I'll gladly welcome a new article when the time is right. Mabalu (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found nothing good aside from this thus no better improvement. DGG For the sake of consensus, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only award isa junior award, which normally means "not yet notable". Family COI can give even worse results than paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.