Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Ralph

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 keep. Tone 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ralph

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

None of these awards are important; none of the references substantial. The articles is part of an promotional campaign for the individual and her company--see the adjacent AfD for the article on the company, which essentially duplicates the content. . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Ralph & Russo. Tamara Ralph, as well as her company, has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, well-established, reliable news sources, as well as in fashion journals. Being included on Fortune magazine's 40 under 40 list is significant; it is a listing of those under 40 considered to have power and influence, and fellow listees the year Tamara Ralph was listed included CEOs and founders of companies like Google, Yahoo, AirBnB, Pinterest, Instagram, Uber, Tata Starbucks, Spotify, etc. Inclusion on that list is most definitely not unimportant! Tamara Ralph designs the fashions without which Ralph & Russo would not have a business. She clearly meets WP:CREATIVE Many other fashion designers have their own article - the fact that this article could be greatly improved is not a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Ralph & Russo. Commenting on both Tamara Ralph's and Ralph & Russo's discussions, but the collective subject seems to meet the criteria. I'm cautious of inherited notability here, despite the fact there is notability here somewhere I don't think deleting both articles is the answer. The Vogue and The Times references that have already been mentioned seem very in-depth. A few others in the FT and British press seem to cover them well, so for me pass general notability. The question is, does the subject warrant two articles or one? I say keep Ralph & Russo, but merge Tarama Ralph's article, as the brand seems to get the most coverage.FelixFLB (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of how the articles were created, they do appear to be of notable subjects who have garnered significant references and critical attention. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2018 (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.